[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120621224918.GA27561@openwall.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 02:49:18 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: relbench and changed format names
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:37:08AM +0200, Frank Dittrich wrote:
> These are the format names:
>
>
> $ ./john --list=format-details |cut -f 7|sort |uniq -c|grep -v "^ *1 "
> 2 MySQL
> 2 NT MD4
> 2 Raw SHA-1
>
> These are the format labels:
>
> mysql-fast
> mysql
> nt
> nt2
> raw-sha1
> raw-sha1-ng
Thanks. I think we should patch these by moving the " (label
mysql-fast)" and the like into FORMAT_NAME.
> Benchmarking: MySQL [32/32 (label mysql-fast)]... DONE
Will be:
MySQL (label mysql-fast)
> Benchmarking: MySQL [32/32 (label mysql)]... DONE
MySQL (label mysql)
> Benchmarking: NT MD4 [128/128 SSE2 + 32/32]... DONE
NT MD4 (label nt)
> Benchmarking: NT MD4 [128/128 SSE2 intrinsics 12x]... DONE
NT MD4 (label nt2)
> Benchmarking: Raw SHA-1 [128/128 SSE2 intrinsics 8x]... DONE
Raw SHA-1 (label raw-sha1)
> Benchmarking: Raw SHA-1 [128/128 SSE2 intrinsics 4x]... DONE
Raw SHA-1 (label raw-sha1-ng)
In fact, should we possibly unify these label names - e.g., consistently
use the "-ng" suffix on the newer and faster implementations?
For MySQL, is there any reason to keep the non-fast implementation in
the tree at all? If not, then let's move it to unused/ and rename
mysql-fast to just mysql (and not mention the label then).
Alexander
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.
