[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:51:13 +0200
From: Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Several enhancements for relbench
On 06/23/2012 09:07 PM, Solar Designer wrote:
> Frank -
>
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 07:17:50PM +0200, Frank Dittrich wrote:
>> If a particular benchmark appears several times in the same file,
>> print a message to STDERR,
>
> OK.
>
>> and pick the higher values for
>> comparision (higher real value is considered here, only if the
>> real values are the same, the higher virtual value is considered).
>
> I think it's better to include ALGORITHM_NAME into the names being
> compared (for both formats) when an otherwise-matching format name is
> detected. Only if that still leaves matching format names, print a
> second warning and do something else (like what you implemented).
If I try to implement what you suggested, it will be *a*
*lot* more complicated then the current change.
I need to implement mapping of algorithm names in addition to mapping of
format names, because john-1.7.9-jumbo-5 used
SSE2i 12x
SSE2i 10x4x3
SSE2i 8x
Whereas the current git has
128/128 SSE2 intrinsics 10x4x3
And what if one file uses SSE2, the other SSE2i?
What kind of fuzzy logic should I implement to find the best match?
Furthermore, with -v, I would need to list both algorithm names (the one
from File1 and the one from File2) in addition to the format name in the
"Ratio:" output.
I think there needs a lot of thought put into the best possible
solution, and this will not be ready for the next jumbo.
For the next jumbo, I am still thinking about how to handle cases where
one file just contains
Raw:
and the other file
Many salts:
Only one salt:
But I still don't have a good idea.
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.
