Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 02:51:15 +0200 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Reduced binary size On 2012-06-17 22:54, magnum wrote: > 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. I just committed reduced binary size for raw-md4/md5/sha1 and nt2. Saves 3 or 4 bytes per loaded hash (makes some difference for 135 million hashes, lol) and should help keeping good stuff in cache. It's not merged to bleeding yet - the get_source() gets a little trickier and I should get some sleep. It passes Test Suite - actually I would have committed a hideous bug in SHA-1 if it wasn't for TS. 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.