Re: [RFD] optimized versions of openssl

2002-09-04 Thread Michael Poole
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

Re: [RFD] optimized versions of openssl

2002-09-04 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
>> 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

Re: [RFD] optimized versions of openssl

2002-09-04 Thread Michael Stone
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

Re: [RFD] optimized versions of openssl

2002-09-04 Thread Vince Mulhollon
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

Re: [RFD] optimized versions of openssl

2002-09-04 Thread Michael Stone
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

Re [RFD] optimized versions of openssl

2002-09-04 Thread chris
> "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

Re: [RFD] optimized versions of openssl

2002-09-04 Thread Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
"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

Re: [RFD] optimized versions of openssl

2002-09-04 Thread Colin Watson
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

Re: [RFD] optimized versions of openssl

2002-09-04 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
>> 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

Re: [RFD] optimized versions of openssl

2002-09-04 Thread Vince Mulhollon
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)

Re: [RFD] optimized versions of openssl

2002-09-04 Thread Vince Mulhollon
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