[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c874d87b00b7ac5c69e90873e2946807@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 22:54:24 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Reduced binary size (was: optional new raw sha1 implemetation)
On 2012-06-17 01:22, magnum wrote:
> Also, unlike the formats that use intrinsics.c, this format will benefit
> from a reduced binary_size (just the one 32-bit int that is checked in
> cmp_all()), and a "linkedin" version of that would probably perform way
> better than our current one, with six million hashes. This would be
> trivial. Maybe I'll try it out later unless someone else do.
No, wait... What is stopping us from using reduced binary size in the
old formats too? Nothing! I have been confused for years. Maybe I should
try this out in raw-md5 and raw-sha1[_li] and see what happens when
loading zillions of hashes.
magnum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
