Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 04:19:23 +0400 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: relbench and changed format names On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 01:57:25AM +0200, magnum wrote: > I think labeling the NT format (in n incarnations) as n different > formats will introduce a lot of user confusion. Yes, but we already had two different names (and labels) for it in 1.7.9-jumbo-5. > relbench could use the fastest found. > > But no, I don't have any specific suggestion (unless "relbench could use > the fastest found" is a suggestion. Maybe it is). It is a specific suggestion, and a reasonable one. However, it would be bad for some use cases of relbench - e.g., when trying to see the effect of compiler options. > I just really dislike > the idea of putting implementation-specific stuff in the format label. > They do not belong there. But if we put these implementation IDs in the ALGORITHM_NAME field, that mixes them with build-specific detail that relbench should not (and does not) consider. So we'd need yet another field for the implementation ID, or actually it may just as well be a string formatting convention. My " (label X)" suggestion is precisely such a convention. I have no better idea right now. I think we should just do that, with the label in FORMAT_NAME where needed, formatted as suggested above. Alexander
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.