Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 22:01:59 +0400 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: gcc versions On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 04:35:41PM +0100, magnum wrote: > Great! So it seems we should use 1-1-1 for any version of gcc older than > 4.4.5. I presume there is a macro for the third digit. Yes. It's __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__. > I'm still curious to know at what gcc version we would have to disable > intrinsics completely. Maybe we should still do it for <4.0? I thought so, but: gcc version: gcc (gcc version 3.4.6) Best paras: raw-MD4: 1 (13852K c/s) crypt-MD5: 3 (9808 c/s) raw-SHA1: 1 (6500K c/s) (same machine). It is curious that crypt-MD5 was fastest at PARA 3, but it's slower than no-intrinsics anyway (the X2 code provided over 10000 c/s). For raw-MD4 and raw-SHA1, I'm not sure - I'll need to obtain no-intrinsics numbers for them for this version of gcc (although I think the fallback will be to Bartavelle's assembly code, so the gcc version should not matter much). > I'm pretty sure we can assume 1-1-1 for 32-bit < 4.4.5 too even if > untested. I do not think I have ever seen a 32-bit build getting a > higher best para than 64-bit for a specific version. Yes. The question is whether to go higher than 1-1-1 for 4.4.6+ or not (on 32-bit builds). 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.