Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 10:52:34 +0100 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: New plugin load order magic On 5 Jan, 2013, at 2:34 , Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> wrote: > On 01/05/2013 01:10 AM, magnum wrote: >> After Lukas' struct name fixes, I opted to try the struct-name sort order, committed now. I took the chance to rename fmt_rawSHA512 to fmt_raw0_SHA512 which ensures it loads before the Blake2 format. BTW I also renamed (talking format *labels* now) blake2-512 to raw-blake2-512, I hope anyone doesn't disagree with that? ... > When I change the Makefile again (use $(SORT) without -r), remove > john.o, and build a new john version without a make clean, I get a > binary of size of 2146816 bytes. > The dummy format test gives between 62825K and 64214K now, which is > somewhere between the c/s rates of the other binaries. > > Admittedly, dummy isn't the most important format. > But I don't understand these fairly reproducible c/s rate differences. > And I really don't know why the binaries differ in size. > > May be I should get some sleep and hope someone else can come up with an > explanation. Both issues are just effects of building slightly different things. The size difference is due to alignments. The speed difference, we have seen that before. Sometimes I have even made optmizations that I could "prove" (with valgrind) should speed things up, yet slowed things down. This may be because of bad luck with cache lines, and things like that. 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.