Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:10:09 +0200
From: magnum <>
Subject: Re: ICC performance regression

On 25 Apr, 2013, at 1:30 , Solar Designer <> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:12:19AM +0200, magnum wrote:
>> Old pre-built files, icc 12.1.4:
> [...]
>> Benchmarking: FreeBSD MD5 [128/128 SSE2 intrinsics 12x]... DONE
>> Raw:	39204 c/s real, 39204 c/s virtual
> [...]
>> gcc 4.7.2, -native target:
> [...]
>> Benchmarking: crypt-MD5 [128/128 AVX intrinsics 12x]... DONE
>> Raw:	36936 c/s real, 36936 c/s virtual
> This is pretty significant difference in favor of old icc, and not all
> CPUs have AVX, so I think we should simply continue to use old icc to
> prebuild the files.

This requires someone having an older version. I haven't found one yet.

Until now we have compared icc using -O3 (25 *minutes* compile time per file), to gcc using just -O2 (compiling in 3 seconds). I will try some different versions of icc as well as MD5_PARA values (very time consuming), but also different sets of options to gcc and see where we end up.

> Why the name discrepancy, though?  There was no intent to rename this
> format to crypt-MD5, was there?  If I rename it, I'll use md5crypt,
> including in the printed name.

I changed label now but not the name so it's just cosmetical. I found it misleading when loading an AIX {smd5} hash and it answered

Loaded 1 password hash (FreeBSD MD5 [128/128 AVX intrinsics 12x]) if that was specifically what's been loaded. We can use md5crypt instead though.


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.