PPC SHA-1 Updates in "pu"

[Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>]

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> writes:

> linux@horizon.com writes:
>
>> Well, I'm not sure it's worth this much trouble.  Both of my PPC
>> implementations are smaller and faster than the current one,
>> so that's a pretty easy decision.  The difference between them
>> is 2-3%, which is, I think, not enough to be worth the maintenance
>> burden of a run-time decision infrastructure.  Just pick either one
>> and call it a day.
>>...
>> Not that numbers are bad, but I think that until there's a real
>> need for more than a single good-enough version per instruction set,
>> this is excessive.
>
> OK.  I somehow got an impression that your two versions had
> quite different performance characteristics on G4 and G5 and
> there was a real choice.  If they are between a few per-cent,
> then I agree it is not worth doing at all.

If somebody has time and inclination, please try updated PPC SHA-1
from linux@horizon.com that is in "pu" (say make check-sha1) and
report impressions.

The first line from ./test-sha1.sh is the time output to hash 100MB
and there should be bunch of OK output to verify the code hashes
things correctly for inputs of various sizes.