Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:49:25 -0500 From: "jfoug" <jfoug@....net> To: <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com> 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. Jim.
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.