Bill Pringlemeir wrote: > > I know that gcc would produce better code if the hash constants were > stored in a static const array. A pointer could then move along and > retrieve the constants. This would also save space (and time??) on > most architectures that I know. >
Yes - for ARM this does produce better code. Its slightly slower for x86 however (sorry don't have any bench mark results to hand, but from memory, the differences weren't actually that significant - a few percent either way in each case). If you need a fast ARM md5 routine, you might be interested in my ARM assembler implementation which is included in dietlibc. Its fairly fast, but its most significant feature is tiny code size. Andre -- See Dave Matthews Band live or win a signed guitar http://r.lycos.com/r/bmgfly_mail_dmb/http://win.ipromotions.com/lycos_020201/splash.asp ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
