[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 10:52:34 +0100
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: New plugin load order magic
On 5 Jan, 2013, at 2:34 , Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> wrote:
> On 01/05/2013 01:10 AM, magnum wrote:
>> After Lukas' struct name fixes, I opted to try the struct-name sort order, committed now. I took the chance to rename fmt_rawSHA512 to fmt_raw0_SHA512 which ensures it loads before the Blake2 format. BTW I also renamed (talking format *labels* now) blake2-512 to raw-blake2-512, I hope anyone doesn't disagree with that?
...
> When I change the Makefile again (use $(SORT) without -r), remove
> john.o, and build a new john version without a make clean, I get a
> binary of size of 2146816 bytes.
> The dummy format test gives between 62825K and 64214K now, which is
> somewhere between the c/s rates of the other binaries.
>
> Admittedly, dummy isn't the most important format.
> But I don't understand these fairly reproducible c/s rate differences.
> And I really don't know why the binaries differ in size.
>
> May be I should get some sleep and hope someone else can come up with an
> explanation.
Both issues are just effects of building slightly different things. The size difference is due to alignments. The speed difference, we have seen that before. Sometimes I have even made optmizations that I could "prove" (with valgrind) should speed things up, yet slowed things down. This may be because of bad luck with cache lines, and things like that.
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.
