Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:33:57 +0400 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Suggestions for XEON performance? I wrote: > > (I am planning to add "linux-x86-sse-elf" which would be the right > > choice for P4s. With that, they would become only a little bit slower > > than P3s per-MHz. Stay tuned.) On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 08:19:00PM +0200, dvorak wrote: > Is there a place where such future features are listed, No. > since i started to > look into this as well since i didn't find a reference, but maybe i should > just ask the list. Yes, if you want to avoid duplicate work on an enhancement to John, just ask on this list before you start. > > > Also should I use gcc 3.4 or 4.0? > > > > It shouldn't matter. > > For the assembly stuff that is, on a P4 i noticed that gcc 3.4 uses very slow > memset implementations (rep stosd iirc). But i guess most (if not all) > performance critical loops are in assembly anyways. Yes - most are in assembly. And memset() performance is irrelevant for John anyway. (Offtopic - that "very slow memset" you saw might not be as slow in practice as you think it is. You may want to benchmark it rather than merely look at the code and speculate. "rep stosl" was slow on the original Intel Pentium. It is not that slow on P4.) -- Alexander Peslyak <solar at openwall.com> GPG key ID: B35D3598 fp: 6429 0D7E F130 C13E C929 6447 73C3 A290 B35D 3598 http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments Was I helpful? Please give your feedback here: http://rate.affero.net/solar
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.