Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 08:15:57 +0400 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: C compiler generated SSE2 code On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 02:22:43PM +0200, bartavelle@...quise.net wrote: > I tested with a handful of compilers on my core 2 computer. With all > compilers the fastest code was produced with DES_BS_VECTOR = 2, no > VECTOR34 and no MIX. Same here. > The following combinations did not work at all : > > DES_BS_VECTOR = 4, VECTOR34 and MIX, with gcc 4.5.0, 4.3.2 and icc 10.1. > Clang did work fine however. That's weird. All combinations work for me with gcc 4.5.0. I've just re-tested with the exact john-1.7.5-des-intrinsics-1.diff.gz that I posted. BTW, there are even more combinations to try - there's also the MM setting. It lets you choose SSE2+MMX vs. SSE2+native. > The best speeds were : > Reference : Vanilla, gcc-4.5.0 : 2706K/2329K > > icc 10.1 : 2662K/2259K > gcc 4.3.2 : 2692K/2314K > gcc 4.5.0 : 2713K/2332K (with your inline flags) > clang : 2763K/2363K (also with your inline flags) On a Core i7 920 2.67 GHz with gcc 4.5.0, I am getting: Vanilla 1.7.5 (x86-64.S code): Many salts: 2540K c/s real, 2540K c/s virtual Only one salt: 2192K c/s real, 2192K c/s virtual SSE2 intrinsics (DES_BS_VECTOR = 2): Many salts: 2620K c/s real, 2620K c/s virtual Only one salt: 2287K c/s real, 2287K c/s virtual This is with the exact code I posted (only x86-64.h edited). Other settings (the #define's in x86-64.h and DES_bs_b.c) result in speeds from 1600K to 2100K. > What I find interesting is that clang performs so well and icc so badly. Oh, I'd say that all of them perform surprisingly well on this test. Thanks, Alexander
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.