Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 02:09:31 +0400
From: Solar Designer <>
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.


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.