From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1457
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net>
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general
Subject: Re: crypt* files in crypt directory
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 09:52:34 +0200
Message-ID: <20120808075233.GJ30810@port70.net>
References: <alpine.LNX.2.02.1207211701001.1301@localhost.localdomain>
 <20120808022421.GE27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <20120808044235.GA22470@openwall.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1344412367 3559 80.91.229.3 (8 Aug 2012 07:52:47 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 07:52:47 +0000 (UTC)
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Original-X-From: musl-return-1458-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Aug 08 09:52:48 2012
Return-path: <musl-return-1458-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>
Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org
Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200])
	by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <musl-return-1458-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>)
	id 1Sz14R-000319-4e
	for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 09:52:47 +0200
Original-Received: (qmail 17651 invoked by uid 550); 8 Aug 2012 07:52:46 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
Original-Received: (qmail 17642 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2012 07:52:46 -0000
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120808044235.GA22470@openwall.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1457
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1457>

* Solar Designer <solar@openwall.com> [2012-08-08 08:42:35 +0400]:
> I see that you did this - and I think you took it too far.  The code
> became twice slower on Pentium 3 when compiling with gcc 3.4.5 (approx.
> 140 c/s down to 77 c/s).  Adding -finline-functions
> -fold-unroll-all-loops regains only a fraction of the speed (112 c/s);
> less aggressive loop unrolling results in lower speeds.
> 

i thought slowness is a feature in this case..

at least that was the general agreement about the
size vs speed tradeoff of the des code