Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:32:25 +0200 From: Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Several enhancements for relbench On 06/23/2012 09:07 PM, Solar Designer wrote: > Frank - > > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 07:17:50PM +0200, Frank Dittrich wrote: >> If a particular benchmark appears several times in the same file, >> print a message to STDERR, > > OK. > >> and pick the higher values for >> comparision (higher real value is considered here, only if the >> real values are the same, the higher virtual value is considered). > > I think it's better to include ALGORITHM_NAME into the names being > compared (for both formats) when an otherwise-matching format name is > detected. Only if that still leaves matching format names, print a > second warning and do something else (like what you implemented). I am not sure I understand what you mean. This change was intended to solve the following problem: File1 contains: Benchmarking: Raw MD5 [32/32]... DONE Raw: 1489K c/s real, 1489K c/s virtual File2 contains Benchmarking: Raw MD5 [SSE2i 12x]... DONE Raw: 5702K c/s real, 5702K c/s virtual Benchmarking: Raw MD5 [SSE2i 10x4x3]... DONE Raw: 5122K c/s real, 5122K c/s virtual The current relbench version would compare the benchmark of File1 with the second benchmark in File2 where the format name matches the one in File1. I thought it would be more fair to use the fastest of multiple benchmarks in File2. So I think this change is an improvement over what we currently have. What scenario do you have in mind? Should I always include the algorithm name when trying to find a match between File1 and File2, and only if that doesn't work, try matching format names only, and in that case pick the fastest of multiple benchmarks in each File? Frank
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.