From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] block-sha1: more good unaligned memory access candidates Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:33:57 -0700 Message-ID: <7v63crbja2.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linus Torvalds , git@vger.kernel.org To: Nicolas Pitre X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Aug 13 21:34:21 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Mbg3y-0003k7-9a for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:34:14 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755500AbZHMTeB (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:34:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755498AbZHMTeB (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:34:01 -0400 Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:39294 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755497AbZHMTeA (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:34:00 -0400 Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12AF999CF; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:34:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5B8E099CE; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:33:58 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 412F7116-8840-11DE-A5F7-EAC21EFB4A78-77302942!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Nicolas Pitre writes: > As it is now, I was about to suggest: > > git mv block-sha1/sha1.[ch] . > rmdir block-sha1 > rm -r mozilla-sha1 > rm -r arm > rm -r ppc > > and remove support for openssl's SHA1 usage, making this implementation > unconditional. After all it is faster, or so close to be faster than > the alternatives, that we should probably cut on the extra dependency > and simplify portability issues at the same time. Wow. Is it now faster than the arm/ and ppc/ hand-tweaked assembly?