[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120622001923.GA27989@openwall.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 04:19:23 +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 01:57:25AM +0200, magnum wrote:
> I think labeling the NT format (in n incarnations) as n different
> formats will introduce a lot of user confusion.
Yes, but we already had two different names (and labels) for it in
1.7.9-jumbo-5.
> relbench could use the fastest found.
>
> But no, I don't have any specific suggestion (unless "relbench could use
> the fastest found" is a suggestion. Maybe it is).
It is a specific suggestion, and a reasonable one. However, it would be
bad for some use cases of relbench - e.g., when trying to see the effect
of compiler options.
> I just really dislike
> the idea of putting implementation-specific stuff in the format label.
> They do not belong there.
But if we put these implementation IDs in the ALGORITHM_NAME field, that
mixes them with build-specific detail that relbench should not (and does
not) consider. So we'd need yet another field for the implementation ID,
or actually it may just as well be a string formatting convention.
My " (label X)" suggestion is precisely such a convention.
I have no better idea right now. I think we should just do that, with
the label in FORMAT_NAME where needed, formatted as suggested above.
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.
