> Here is an updated version of the patch. > > Addressing a) "pointer to the function" (to select ADCX/ADOX) and b) > multiple points addition > > There is (only) ~1% performance deterioration in due to the pointer being > passed now, instead of (originally) being static. You can choose which > style is preferable. >
Thanks! Alternatives would be (a) using a new lock for safe static initialization, or (b) more code duplication to avoid the need for an explicit pointer (there could be two separate implementations for the higher-level routines). However, given the 1% performance penalty, that's a minor issue at this point. Do you have any comment from Intel on the concerns regarding the scattering technique (http://cryptojedi.org/peter/data/chesrump-20130822.pdf)? Bodo ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
