Benjamin Gilbert wrote:
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
UTF-8 please. Hint: it should most likely be an รถ.
Whoops, I had thought I had gotten that right. I'll get updates for
parts 2 and 3 sent out on Monday.
I'm sending the corrected parts 2 and 3 as replies to this email. The
UTF-8 fix is the *o
Matt Mackall wrote:
In 2003, I was getting 17MB/s out of my Athlon. Now I'm getting 2.7MB/s.
Were your tests with or without the latest /dev/urandom fixes? This
one in particular:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.21.y.git;a=commitdiff;h=374f167dfb97c1785515a0c41e32a66b4
Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Have you benchmarked this against lib/sha1.c? Please post the results.
> Until then, I'm frankly skeptical that your unrolled version is faster
> because when I introduced lib/sha1.c the rolled version therein won by
> a significant margin and had 1/10t
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 12:47:19PM -0400, Benjamin Gilbert wrote:
> Matt Mackall wrote:
> >On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 08:33:25PM -0400, Benjamin Gilbert wrote:
> >>It's not just the loop unrolling; it's the register allocation and
> >>spilling. For comparison, I built SHATransform() from the
> >>dr
Matt Mackall wrote:
On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 08:33:25PM -0400, Benjamin Gilbert wrote:
It's not just the loop unrolling; it's the register allocation and
spilling. For comparison, I built SHATransform() from the
drivers/char/random.c in 2.6.11, using gcc 3.3.5 with -O2 and
SHA_CODE_SIZE == 3 (
On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 08:33:25PM -0400, Benjamin Gilbert wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >Matt Mackall wrote:
> >>Have you benchmarked this against lib/sha1.c? Please post the results.
> >>Until then, I'm frankly skeptical that your unrolled version is faster
> >>because when I introduced lib/sha1.
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jun 8 2007 17:42, Benjamin Gilbert wrote:
@@ -0,0 +1,299 @@
+/*
+ * x86-optimized SHA1 hash algorithm (i486 and above)
+ *
+ * Originally from Nettle
+ * Ported from M4 to cpp by Benjamin Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2004, Niels M?ller
+ * Copyright
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Matt Mackall wrote:
Have you benchmarked this against lib/sha1.c? Please post the results.
Until then, I'm frankly skeptical that your unrolled version is faster
because when I introduced lib/sha1.c the rolled version therein won by
a significant margin and had 1/10th the cach
On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 04:23:27PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Matt Mackall wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 05:42:53PM -0400, Benjamin Gilbert wrote:
> >>Add x86-optimized implementation of the SHA-1 hash function, taken from
> >>Nettle under the LGPL. This code will be enabled on kernels compil
Matt Mackall wrote:
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 05:42:53PM -0400, Benjamin Gilbert wrote:
Add x86-optimized implementation of the SHA-1 hash function, taken from
Nettle under the LGPL. This code will be enabled on kernels compiled for
486es or better; kernels which support 386es will use the generi
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 05:42:53PM -0400, Benjamin Gilbert wrote:
> Add x86-optimized implementation of the SHA-1 hash function, taken from
> Nettle under the LGPL. This code will be enabled on kernels compiled for
> 486es or better; kernels which support 386es will use the generic
> implementatio
On Jun 8 2007 17:42, Benjamin Gilbert wrote:
>@@ -0,0 +1,299 @@
>+/*
>+ * x86-optimized SHA1 hash algorithm (i486 and above)
>+ *
>+ * Originally from Nettle
>+ * Ported from M4 to cpp by Benjamin Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>+ *
>+ * Copyright (C) 2004, Niels M?ller
>+ * Copyright (C) 2006-2007
Add x86-optimized implementation of the SHA-1 hash function, taken from
Nettle under the LGPL. This code will be enabled on kernels compiled for
486es or better; kernels which support 386es will use the generic
implementation (since we need BSWAP).
We disable building lib/sha1.o when an optimized
13 matches
Mail list logo
