[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44577FF6.60303@o2.pl>
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 17:51:18 +0200
From: Michal Luczaj <regenrecht@...pl>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: MinGW build
Solar Designer wrote:
> Well, you're still using the return value from clock() to emulate the
> return value of times(). According to POSIX.1-2001, clock() "shall
> return the implementation's best approximation to the processor time
> used by the process ...", whereas times() "shall return the elapsed real
> time ..." So this patch looks wrong to me.
Does it mean that glibc is wrong too? In The GNU C Library at
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Processor-Time.html I
red that:
"The return value [of times()] is the calling process' CPU time (_the
same value you get from clock()_. times returns (clock_t)(-1) to
indicate failure."
Did I misunderstand something?
What is more, after running --test, it seemed that everything was fine:
Benchmarking: Traditional DES [64/64 BS MMX]... DONE
Many salts: 593832 c/s real, 596535 c/s virtual
Only one salt: 538966 c/s real, 548912 c/s virtual
>> Solar, I would be very grateful if you could put this in contrib/ as
>> well.
> It's there:
Thank you! (even if patch is wrong again :)
Michal
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.
