Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 02:09:31 +0400 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Test results for 179 jumbo-4 On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 12:45:59PM -0600, jfoug wrote: > >BTW, why aren't you testing -jumbo-5 yet? > > I will, but my time is short. Oh, I thought that you'd abandon further testing of -4 as soon as -5 appeared, so this would not take you additional time. > >Hmm. Aren't dynamic_27 and _28 duplicates of "md5"? Do we need them? > > Good question. At one time, they were much faster for some builds. I think > they are still faster if all you have is md5-mmx.S (i.e. 32 bit early asm). > However, the MD5 format since it now has intrinsic md5 is faster for most > builds. Thank you for explaining this. > >Thus, I am puzzled as to why you're getting them defined on SPARC, which > >is also big-endian. > > They are NOT defined. However, the code within the -subformat:LIST function > was broken. It was walking an int, printing it out. So if things were > properly sequential, this int, and the format name 'lined' up. On the BE > builds, it was listing this: > > dynamic_27 dynamic_29: Unicode(md5($s)) > > which within the new test suite, was causing it to think dynamic_27 was a > valid format on the BE systems, and also NOT making dynamic_29 a valid > format on the same build. > > > I have put a patch on the wiki. It is based on jumbo-4, but I am 99% sure it > will be just fine, applied to jumbo-5. Thanks. This is post-jumbo-5 material now, and I think this issue is minor enough that it does not warrant a -jumbo-6 yet. Alexander
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.