[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <866a91bf524d9ecf225d8598953db2e7@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 22:49:30 +0100
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: interleaved bitslice?
On 2015-03-14 20:01, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 08:37:01AM +0100, magnum wrote:
>> On 2015-03-11 21:55, Solar Designer wrote:
>>> solar@...l:~/md5slice$ gcc md5slice.c -o md5slice -Wall -s -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -DVECTOR -march=native
>>>
>>> This gave "warning: always_inline function might not be inlinable" about
>>> FF(), I(), H(), F(), add32r(), add32c(), add32() - but then it built
>>> fine. The speed is:
>>
>> Solar,
>>
>> While experimenting with this I noticed using a vector size of 32 but
>> still compiling for AVX gave a slight boost (~5%). I assume this ends up
>> similar to the interleaving we use in Jumbo, and is faster for the same
>> reasons.
>
> I've just tested this with gcc 4.9.2 on Linux, and the generated code is
> "floating-point" 256-bit AVX. So this is not interleaving.
>
And yet it's faster? I would not have guessed that ever but I suppose
it's not that special. I'm probably the guy least using floating point
in the entire world.
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.
