Michael Stone writes:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 03:35:58PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > The shared library is 179 kB. Why don't you just provide the optimized
> > versions in the same package? Are the any stability/correctness issues
>
> Now for the real overachiever, what would be r
>> Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now for the real overachiever, what would be really cool is if you
> hacked openssl to do *runtime* detection of which optimizations to use.
That would be indeed much better. I blindly assumed he was talking
about compiler flags and I further a
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 03:35:58PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> The shared library is 179 kB. Why don't you just provide the optimized
> versions in the same package? Are the any stability/correctness issues
Now for the real overachiever, what would be really cool is if you
hacked opens
On 09/04/2002 08:51:02 AM [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker)
wrote:
>> division and multiplication. Recompiling libssl with SPARCv8
>> optimizations speeds up logging in with ssh on an Ultra1 (SPARCv9) by
>> a factor of 6, IIRC. See the debian-sparc archives for details.
This is quite
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 08:26:19AM -0500, Vince Mulhollon wrote:
> I think I can safely speak for everyone on debian-devel as per this:
>
> 1) The difference in overall speed is small, and rarely publically
> reported.
> The 1% gain is individually considered either vital must-have, or
> worthless
> "Vince Mulhollon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think I can safely speak for everyone on debian-devel as per this:
> >
> > 1) The difference in overall speed is small, and rarely publically
> > reported. The 1% gain is individually considered either vital
> > must-have, or worthless.
>
> Y
"Vince Mulhollon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think I can safely speak for everyone on debian-devel as per this:
>
> 1) The difference in overall speed is small, and rarely publically
> reported. The 1% gain is individually considered either vital
> must-have, or worthless.
You have obviousl
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 08:26:19AM -0500, Vince Mulhollon wrote:
> On 09/04/2002 08:12:50 AM Christoph Martin wrote:
> >> etc. This has the benefit that it works on every i386 compatible
> >> processor but it is slow on processors where there could be a lot of
> >> optimisation.
>
> Oh not this th
>> Christoph Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The idea is to have a standard libssl0.9.6 package with no
> optimisation and some optional packages like libssl0.9.6-i686 or
> libssl0.9.6-k7 which can replace libssl0.9.6.
The shared library is 179 kB. Why don't you just provide the optimi
On 09/04/2002 08:26:19 AM "Vince Mulhollon" wrote:
>> I think I can safely speak for everyone on debian-devel as per this:
>>
>> 1) The difference in overall speed is small, and rarely publically
>> reported.
>> The 1% gain is individually considered either vital must-have, or
>> worthless.
>> 2)
On 09/04/2002 08:12:50 AM Christoph Martin wrote:
>> etc. This has the benefit that it works on every i386 compatible
>> processor but it is slow on processors where there could be a lot of
>> optimisation.
Oh not this thread again!
Processor specific optimizations for i386 is debated approx ever
Hi,
as you might know, there is only one binary package of libssl0.9.6 for
each architecture. These packages are all build for the least capable
processor. eg. for i386 there is no optimisation for pentiums
etc. This has the benefit that it works on every i386 compatible
processor but it is slow
12 matches
Mail list logo
