Andy Polyakov wrote:
| [...]
| H-m-m-m... It's not like I just wrote the note off the top of my head...
| I actually benchmarked 9% improvement with off-by-2 shifts on P4
| workstation available in *my* disposal... Two possibilities: 1) they've
| changed something between steppings and we have
aes-586.pl module is committed to CVS now [see
http://cvs.openssl.org/rlog?f=openssl/crypto/aes/asm/aes-586.pl]. Take
Special note about instruction choice in commentary section for
consideration even for AMD64. Merry Christmas to everybody:-) A.
hmmm... i seem to have done better by switching
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, Andy Polyakov wrote:
aes-586.pl module is committed to CVS now [see
http://cvs.openssl.org/rlog?f=openssl/crypto/aes/asm/aes-586.pl]. Take
Special note about instruction choice in commentary section for
consideration even for AMD64. Merry Christmas to everybody:-)
... Which leaves the question about why
RC4_INT code was performing so poorly on P4 opened...
yeah i was meaning to go back and re-evaluate the RC4_INT case -- there's
one thing i know really specific to rc4 which isn't a factor in AES:
aliasing. iirc the rc4 loop has two table lookups and one
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004, Andy Polyakov wrote:
aes-586.pl module is committed to CVS now [see
http://cvs.openssl.org/rlog?f=openssl/crypto/aes/asm/aes-586.pl]. Take
Special note about instruction choice in commentary section for
consideration even for AMD64. Merry Christmas to everybody:-) A.
