Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <[email protected]> writes: > It is a bit unfair to compare umac with plain hashes.
For large messages I think it is fair; the O(n) work is the same for hash and hmac-hash; hmac only adds O(1) work of hashing some short constant-size strings. And the benchmark program only tries to measure the O(n) term. > In the last patch > there was an addition to the benchmarks to have HMAC performance as well. Sorry I missed that. Was there really any measureable difference between hash and hmac-hash? The "update" processing is the same (except perhaps an additional function call). BTW, I'm currently debugging some ARM neon code for umac_nh. Looks like umac32 will be about 10 times faster than sha1. And neon is *so* much nicer to work with than the sse instructions on x86. Regards, /Niels -- Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26. Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance. _______________________________________________ nettle-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
