From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: PPC SHA-1 Updates in "pu" Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 03:03:02 -0700 Message-ID: <7vwtb6yip5.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <7vzmg376ee.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20060624012202.4822.qmail@science.horizon.com> <7vfyhv11ej.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jun 24 12:03:14 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fu4yv-0000bx-0V for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:03:13 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933026AbWFXKDE (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Jun 2006 06:03:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933377AbWFXKDE (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Jun 2006 06:03:04 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao07.cox.net ([68.230.241.32]:41654 "EHLO fed1rmmtao07.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933026AbWFXKDD (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Jun 2006 06:03:03 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.9.127]) by fed1rmmtao07.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060624100303.SZLP11027.fed1rmmtao07.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 06:03:03 -0400 To: git@vger.kernel.org User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano 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.