Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 19:21:47 +0100 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: PRINCE On 2015-01-10 06:40, magnum wrote: > On 2015-01-09 17:16, Solar Designer wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 05:02:02PM +0100, magnum wrote: >>> I saw a couple of bugfixes a day so far, so it's not completely stable. >>> We should try to keep it "mergable" in one way or the other. At least >>> refrain from large rewrites unless necessary. For example, we should >>> #ifdef out unneeded code blocks instead of dropping them. >> >> Right, or alternatively we reimplement and then maintain our own code, >> and submit it back to hashcat project. Maybe later. ;-) I think the >> dependency on GMP could/should be avoided, e.g. in favor of "double" >> (like our charset.c uses it) or in favor of saturation at 2^64-1. FWIW I did a quick and dirty test today with dropping GMP and using gcc's __uint128_t extension just to see what performance it would get. That was trivial and the boost was pretty significant: 33% faster. Internally gcc obviously does this using pairs of 64-bit words. I guess we should add 128/64-bit versions of the 64/32 stuff in math.h instead, for portability. Since I can use __uint128_t for testing I can probably work out how to write the functions given enough trial and error :-) Unless... Solar, you don't happen to have 128/64 code readily available? 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.