Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:49:25 -0500
From: "jfoug" <>
To: <>
Subject: RE: Re: Re: [patch] optional new raw sha1 implemetation

>5% improvement is nice, but I'm dissapointed it's not higher. Could you
>send me a .o file? I would like to disassemble it and see where GCC goes
>wrong, hopefully there's a simple way to fix it.

This is not a true valid comparison. This is your code, using the gcc
compiler to build the intrinsic sse instructions.  The format I compared it
to (raw-sha1), was using a .S file built by ICC.    I know the speed from
gcc (cygwin), was 20% or more slower than the icc build (especially for
SHA1). The difference was not as great for MD4/5.  But that was identical
code, simply using a different compiler to pre-build the asm.


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.