Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 22:54:24 +0200 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Reduced binary size (was: optional new raw sha1 implemetation) On 2012-06-17 01:22, magnum wrote: > Also, unlike the formats that use intrinsics.c, this format will benefit > from a reduced binary_size (just the one 32-bit int that is checked in > cmp_all()), and a "linkedin" version of that would probably perform way > better than our current one, with six million hashes. This would be > trivial. Maybe I'll try it out later unless someone else do. No, wait... What is stopping us from using reduced binary size in the old formats too? Nothing! I have been confused for years. Maybe I should try this out in raw-md5 and raw-sha1[_li] and see what happens when loading zillions of hashes. magnum
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.