Jean-Daniel wrote, On 2009-01-22 14:06:
> Everything is green.
>
> The new asm file does not try to determine at runtime if SSE2 is
> present, but it does it at compile time.
> By default the Apple GCC version define __SSE2__, so the default is to
> use it on Mac.
> And as mention before, all sup
Jean-Daniel,
Jean-Daniel wrote:
On Jan 24, 2:46 am, Julien R Pierre - Sun Microsystems
wrote:
Jean-Daniel,
Jean-Daniel wrote:
Since the death of OpenDarwin, I think the only Darwin stand alone
projet is PureDarwin.
But there is not yet a stable version. And in the list of required
processor,
On Jan 24, 2:46 am, Julien R Pierre - Sun Microsystems
wrote:
> Jean-Daniel,
>
> Jean-Daniel wrote:
> > Since the death of OpenDarwin, I think the only Darwin stand alone
> > projet is PureDarwin.
> > But there is not yet a stable version. And in the list of required
> > processor, all listed proc
On Jan 24, 1:40 am, Nelson B Bolyard wrote:
> Jean-Daniel wrote, On 2009-01-21 07:43:
>
> >> What OS?
>
> > Mac OS 10.5.6 (darwin 9.6.0)
>
> Pardon my display of ignorance regarding MacOS/X, but ...
>
> What exactly is darwin?
> Is it just another name for MacOS X?
> Is it MacOS X for x86 PCs?
> I
Jean-Daniel,
Jean-Daniel wrote:
Since the death of OpenDarwin, I think the only Darwin stand alone
projet is PureDarwin.
But there is not yet a stable version. And in the list of required
processor, all listed processor have SSE2.
http://www.puredarwin.org/users/prerequisites
Theoretically it
On Jan 24, 1:09 am, Julien R Pierre - Sun Microsystems
wrote:
> Jean-Daniel,
>
> Jean-Daniel wrote:
> > Everything is green.
>
> Great !
>
> > The new asm file does not try to determine at runtime if SSE2 is
> > present, but it does it at compile time.
> > By default the Apple GCC version define _
Jean-Daniel wrote, On 2009-01-21 07:43:
>> What OS?
>
> Mac OS 10.5.6 (darwin 9.6.0)
Pardon my display of ignorance regarding MacOS/X, but ...
What exactly is darwin?
Is it just another name for MacOS X?
Is it MacOS X for x86 PCs?
Is it some alternative to Apple's standard Mac OS X?
or ??
--
de
Julien R Pierre - Sun Microsystems wrote, On 2009-01-23 16:09:
> Jean-Daniel,
> Please open a bug in bugzilla, and attach your patches there, as well as
> information from this thread.
That bug already exists. The patch is already attached.
Search for NSS bugs with Darwin in the subject.
--
de
Jean-Daniel,
Jean-Daniel wrote:
Everything is green.
Great !
The new asm file does not try to determine at runtime if SSE2 is
present, but it does it at compile time.
By default the Apple GCC version define __SSE2__, so the default is to
use it on Mac.
And as mention before, all supported M
Jean-Daniel,
Jean-Daniel wrote:
In fact, I do not directly use the OpenSSL generator, I'm using the
CDSA keygen API and it return a PKCS1 public key and a PKCS8 private
key.
After that, I can decode the public key using SEC_ASN1DecodeItem with
the SECKEY_RSAPublicKeyTemplate and I can use
PK11
Julien R Pierre - Sun Microsystems wrote:
Nelson,
Nelson B Bolyard wrote:
Julien R Pierre - Sun Microsystems wrote, On 2009-01-21 15:03:
I don't like much the way that we implemented SSE2 on Linux - together
in a single freebl shared library with the non-SSE2 version. That
stands in the wa
On Jan 22, 6:46 pm, Nelson B Bolyard wrote:
> > min: 389 ms, max: 2648
>
> That's more like what's expected.
>
>
>
> > Is there a simple way to test if the generated values are correct ?
>
> Two ways come to mind.
>
> 1) Run NSS's cipher tests.
> cd mozilla/security/nss/tests/cipher
> cipher
Jean-Daniel wrote, On 2009-01-22 05:39:
> Unfortunately it doesn't use gas.
>
> I have modified the mpi_x86.s to use be able to compile it using gcc,
> but I have a question.
Congratulations. You're well on your way to the fame and glory of
becoming a contributor to NSS. :) Seriously, it sou
On Jan 22, 1:23 am, Robert Relyea wrote:
> Nelson B Bolyard wrote:
> > Julien R Pierre - Sun Microsystems wrote, On 2009-01-21 15:03:
>
> >> Even if you end up building NSS with optimizations, they use the regular
> >> multiply instructions, which performs best on AMD chips, but not as well
> >> o
On Jan 22, 2:48 am, Julien R Pierre - Sun Microsystems
wrote:
> Jean-Daniel,
>
> Jean-Daniel wrote:
> >> Another possible reason is if you are comparing 32-bit NSS vs 64-bit
> >> OpenSSL binaries. Regardless of assembly optimizations. The 64-bit code
> >> is always a lot faster, even without optim
Jean-Daniel,
Jean-Daniel wrote:
Another possible reason is if you are comparing 32-bit NSS vs 64-bit
OpenSSL binaries. Regardless of assembly optimizations. The 64-bit code
is always a lot faster, even without optimizations.
Of course, but as my test exec is link on both library, so that coul
Nelson,
Nelson B Bolyard wrote:
Julien R Pierre - Sun Microsystems wrote, On 2009-01-21 15:03:
You are running Darwin, and freebl does not have any optimizations for
RSA on darwin. It has some assembly optimizations on most other x86
platforms. But on Darwin, freebl is built with plain C code
Nelson B Bolyard wrote:
Julien R Pierre - Sun Microsystems wrote, On 2009-01-21 15:03:
Even if you end up building NSS with optimizations, they use the regular
multiply instructions, which performs best on AMD chips, but not as well
on Intel CPUs. For Intel, one needs to use the SSE2 and abo
> You are running Darwin, and freebl does not have any optimizations
for
> RSA on darwin. It has some assembly optimizations on most other x86
> platforms. But on Darwin, freebl is built with plain C code, and no
> assembly at all. That is one reason why the code is running a lot slower.
>
> It's
Julien R Pierre - Sun Microsystems wrote, On 2009-01-21 15:03:
> You are running Darwin, and freebl does not have any optimizations for
> RSA on darwin. It has some assembly optimizations on most other x86
> platforms. But on Darwin, freebl is built with plain C code, and no
> assembly at all.
Jean-Daniel,
Jean-Daniel wrote:
I did an other simple test that call SECKEY_CreateRSAPrivateKey() in a
loop and then call the OpenSSL equivalent to compare both functions.
NSS does not perform as bad as I thought first, but it remain slower
than what I expect on a modern machine.
See the resul
On Jan 21, 2:36 pm, Nelson Bolyard
wrote:
> Jean-Daniel wrote to mozilla.dev.security on 2009-01-20 10:42 PST:
>
> > Hello, I'm trying to generate a keypair using nss, but I encounter some
> > issue. My key generation can take up to 30 seconds on a recent machine
> > (Core 2 Duo 2.2 Ghz) (most gen
Jean-Daniel wrote to mozilla.dev.security on 2009-01-20 10:42 PST:
> Hello, I'm trying to generate a keypair using nss, but I encounter some
> issue. My key generation can take up to 30 seconds on a recent machine
> (Core 2 Duo 2.2 Ghz) (most generation take less the 10 seconds, and
> sometimes le
23 matches
Mail list logo
