[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP154401AE0C2BCB8C6A4A208FD420@phx.gbl>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 21:16:21 +0200
From: Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: relbench/benchmark-unify
On 08/19/2013 09:07 PM, Frank Dittrich wrote:
> Other format names that might need to be reviewed if relbench -v output
> should still print reasonable format names and if we want to avoid
> different C/R formats being wrongly detected as different
> implementations of the same algorithm (or if we want to be able to
> compare CPU implementations and GPU implementations):
[...]
> PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA256-opencl, OpenCL
> PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA256, rounds=12000
> PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA512, GRUB2 / OS X 10.8
Sorry, PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA512 really is different.
> I hope my comments made some sense, and Solar hadn't something
> completely different in mind.
May be if FORMAT_NAME is defined and contains FORMAT_LABEL at offset 0,
we don't print FORMAT_LABEL in --test output?
And may be, in --list=format-details and --list=format-all-details we
should print FORMAT_LABEL as the format name if FORMAT_NAME is empty.
Frank
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.
