Commentary section update in sha512-x86_64.pl.
This commit is contained in:
parent
b3836ed3cb
commit
4a5b8a5bee
1 changed files with 6 additions and 5 deletions
|
@ -8,7 +8,8 @@
|
|||
#
|
||||
# sha256/512_block procedure for x86_64.
|
||||
#
|
||||
# 40% improvement over compiler-generated code on Opteron. No magical
|
||||
# 40% improvement over compiler-generated code on Opteron. On EM64T
|
||||
# sha256 was observed to run >80% faster and sha512 - >40%. No magical
|
||||
# tricks, just straight implementation... I really wonder why gcc
|
||||
# [being armed with inline assembler] fails to generate as fast code.
|
||||
# The only thing which is cool about this module is that it's very
|
||||
|
@ -34,10 +35,10 @@
|
|||
#
|
||||
# Special note on Intel EM64T. While Opteron CPU exhibits perfect
|
||||
# perfromance ratio of 1.5 between 64- and 32-bit flavors [see above],
|
||||
# [currently available] EM64T CPUs apparently are far from it. 64-bit
|
||||
# version, sha512_block, is hardly faster than 32-bit one. This is
|
||||
# presumably because 64-bit shifts/rotates apparently are not atomic
|
||||
# instructions, but implemented in microcode.
|
||||
# [currently available] EM64T CPUs apparently are far from it. On the
|
||||
# contrary, 64-bit version, sha512_block, is ~30% *slower* than 32-bit
|
||||
# sha256_block:-( This is presumably because 64-bit shifts/rotates
|
||||
# apparently are not atomic instructions, but implemented in microcode.
|
||||
|
||||
$output=shift;
|
||||
open STDOUT,"| $^X ../perlasm/x86_64-xlate.pl $output";
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue