Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 19:57:42 +0200
From: magnum <>
Subject: Re: [patch] optional new raw sha1 implemetation

On 2012-06-17 18:54, magnum wrote:
> On 2012-06-17 17:51, Solar Designer wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 05:38:01PM +0200, magnum wrote:
>>> I built with the -native target so I should have got the same speed as
>>> you for Simon's format. But 22600K is the best I get from the
>>> fluctuations. Any idea why?
>> No.
>>> Is an -xop build different in some way?
>> It should be the same, but you could want to check the binary.
> I checked the code and the behavior of gcc and from what I can see there
> should be absolutely no difference with the #ifdefs so this must be
> something with the gcc optimizer. But we do get a different
> taviso_fmt.o. Maybe I'll dissect them some rainy day.

Here's all differences in the pre-defined macros from gcc (on Bull), in 
case there is a clue:

With -xop but not with -march=native:

With -march=native but not with -xop:


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.