Jean-Daniel wrote, On 2009-01-22 14:06:
Everything is green.
The new asm file does not try to determine at runtime if SSE2 is
present, but it does it at compile time.
By default the Apple GCC version define __SSE2__, so the default is to
use it on Mac.
And as mention before, all supported
On Jan 24, 1:40 am, Nelson B Bolyard nel...@bolyard.me wrote:
Jean-Daniel wrote, On 2009-01-21 07:43:
What OS?
Mac OS 10.5.6 (darwin 9.6.0)
Pardon my display of ignorance regarding MacOS/X, but ...
What exactly is darwin?
Is it just another name for MacOS X?
Is it MacOS X for x86 PCs?
On Jan 24, 2:46 am, Julien R Pierre - Sun Microsystems
julien.pierre.nos...@nospam.sun.com wrote:
Jean-Daniel,
Jean-Daniel wrote:
Since the death of OpenDarwin, I think the only Darwin stand alone
projet is PureDarwin.
But there is not yet a stable version. And in the list of required
Jean-Daniel,
Jean-Daniel wrote:
In fact, I do not directly use the OpenSSL generator, I'm using the
CDSA keygen API and it return a PKCS1 public key and a PKCS8 private
key.
After that, I can decode the public key using SEC_ASN1DecodeItem with
the SECKEY_RSAPublicKeyTemplate and I can use
Jean-Daniel,
Jean-Daniel wrote:
Everything is green.
Great !
The new asm file does not try to determine at runtime if SSE2 is
present, but it does it at compile time.
By default the Apple GCC version define __SSE2__, so the default is to
use it on Mac.
And as mention before, all supported
Jean-Daniel wrote, On 2009-01-21 07:43:
What OS?
Mac OS 10.5.6 (darwin 9.6.0)
Pardon my display of ignorance regarding MacOS/X, but ...
What exactly is darwin?
Is it just another name for MacOS X?
Is it MacOS X for x86 PCs?
Is it some alternative to Apple's standard Mac OS X?
or ??
--
Jean-Daniel,
Jean-Daniel wrote:
Since the death of OpenDarwin, I think the only Darwin stand alone
projet is PureDarwin.
But there is not yet a stable version. And in the list of required
processor, all listed processor have SSE2.
http://www.puredarwin.org/users/prerequisites
Theoretically
On Jan 22, 2:48 am, Julien R Pierre - Sun Microsystems
julien.pierre.nos...@nospam.sun.com wrote:
Jean-Daniel,
Jean-Daniel wrote:
Another possible reason is if you are comparing 32-bit NSS vs 64-bit
OpenSSL binaries. Regardless of assembly optimizations. The 64-bit code
is always a lot
On Jan 22, 1:23 am, Robert Relyea rrel...@redhat.com wrote:
Nelson B Bolyard wrote:
Julien R Pierre - Sun Microsystems wrote, On 2009-01-21 15:03:
Even if you end up building NSS with optimizations, they use the regular
multiply instructions, which performs best on AMD chips, but not as
Jean-Daniel wrote, On 2009-01-22 05:39:
Unfortunately it doesn't use gas.
I have modified the mpi_x86.s to use be able to compile it using gcc,
but I have a question.
Congratulations. You're well on your way to the fame and glory of
becoming a contributor to NSS. :) Seriously, it sounds
On Jan 22, 6:46 pm, Nelson B Bolyard nel...@bolyard.me wrote:
min: 389 ms, max: 2648
That's more like what's expected.
Is there a simple way to test if the generated values are correct ?
Two ways come to mind.
1) Run NSS's cipher tests.
cd mozilla/security/nss/tests/cipher
Julien R Pierre - Sun Microsystems wrote:
Nelson,
Nelson B Bolyard wrote:
Julien R Pierre - Sun Microsystems wrote, On 2009-01-21 15:03:
I don't like much the way that we implemented SSE2 on Linux - together
in a single freebl shared library with the non-SSE2 version. That
stands in the
Jean-Daniel wrote to mozilla.dev.security on 2009-01-20 10:42 PST:
Hello, I'm trying to generate a keypair using nss, but I encounter some
issue. My key generation can take up to 30 seconds on a recent machine
(Core 2 Duo 2.2 Ghz) (most generation take less the 10 seconds, and
sometimes less
On Jan 21, 2:36 pm, Nelson Bolyard nonelsons...@nobolyardspam.me
wrote:
Jean-Daniel wrote to mozilla.dev.security on 2009-01-20 10:42 PST:
Hello, I'm trying to generate a keypair using nss, but I encounter some
issue. My key generation can take up to 30 seconds on a recent machine
(Core 2
Jean-Daniel,
Jean-Daniel wrote:
I did an other simple test that call SECKEY_CreateRSAPrivateKey() in a
loop and then call the OpenSSL equivalent to compare both functions.
NSS does not perform as bad as I thought first, but it remain slower
than what I expect on a modern machine.
See the
You are running Darwin, and freebl does not have any optimizations
for
RSA on darwin. It has some assembly optimizations on most other x86
platforms. But on Darwin, freebl is built with plain C code, and no
assembly at all. That is one reason why the code is running a lot slower.
It's
Nelson B Bolyard wrote:
Julien R Pierre - Sun Microsystems wrote, On 2009-01-21 15:03:
Even if you end up building NSS with optimizations, they use the regular
multiply instructions, which performs best on AMD chips, but not as well
on Intel CPUs. For Intel, one needs to use the SSE2 and
Nelson,
Nelson B Bolyard wrote:
Julien R Pierre - Sun Microsystems wrote, On 2009-01-21 15:03:
You are running Darwin, and freebl does not have any optimizations for
RSA on darwin. It has some assembly optimizations on most other x86
platforms. But on Darwin, freebl is built with plain C
Jean-Daniel,
Jean-Daniel wrote:
Another possible reason is if you are comparing 32-bit NSS vs 64-bit
OpenSSL binaries. Regardless of assembly optimizations. The 64-bit code
is always a lot faster, even without optimizations.
Of course, but as my test exec is link on both library, so that
19 matches
Mail list logo
