[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aaf83ac258951b8a32f3469dfdc56c85@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 01:14:17 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: relbench and changed format names
On 2012-06-22 00:56, Frank Dittrich wrote:
> On 06/22/2012 12:49 AM, Solar Designer wrote:
>> 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).
>
> Probably not.
> But mysql and mysql-fast use different test vectors, so identifying one
> as the other would be cheating ;)
True, but mysql-fast is a *lot* faster anyway you put it. I've had
thoughts about this for quite some time. Is there a difference in
plaintext length? OK, I'll look up the answer... no, both are 32. I
think we should do wot Solar said.
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.
