Dan Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, Ferenc Rakoczi wrote:
>
>> The changes look good. For the
>> SPARC version, the '& 0xff000000' part for the
>> 32-bit version and the '& 0xff00000000000000ULL'
>> for the 64-bit version and the '& 0xff' for both
>> versions can be omitted (though I think at -xO3
>> or greater level of optimization the compiler will
>> not emit any instruction for those anyways).
>>
>
> Great idea--I removed those masks.
>
>
>> Just out of curiosity, what type of processor was
>> used for the SPARC results on your spreadsheet?
>> Thanks,
>> Ferenc
>>
>
> thrace.sfbay: sun4u, Sun Fire V120, UltraSPARC-IIe (648 MHz), 1GB memory
> Not fast or new, but I don't have to worry about anyone else wanting to use
> it.
> It shouldn't be used for comparison with x86, just a before/after comparison
> with itself.
>
I thought at one point we had a version of AES that was optmized for
US-IIIi and higher processors. Is that not the case? (If it is, it
might be worthwhile to do a test run on US-IIIi hardware.)
-- Garrett
> --
> This message posted from opensolaris.org
> _______________________________________________
> crypto-discuss mailing list
> crypto-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/crypto-discuss
>
