I'm looking into http://gcc.gnu.org/PR19923
which claims that gcc-4.0 is slower on 'openssl speed'
than earlier versions. The only huge regression seems
to be in md2. ...
I'm interested in the observed performance regression even with the
hand-coded assembly; that simply should not be happening.
... no-asm is really the only representative option to compare
compilers or compiler versions.
As it turned out, the same regression was present with
no-asm. (Hmm.)
When I suggested no-asm I was rather suggesting to examine results for
*other* algorithms. Point is that md2 is rarely used and it's more
interesting/important to pick up test case with more popular algorithm.
Does above mean that even with no-asm you observed same regression
coefficients for *other* algorithms?
It only occurs for -PIC with -O2 or -O3.
Omitting -PIC made the slowdown go away.
Deriving a minimal test case
was extremely straightforward; here's how it evolved:
1. verify "openssl speed" shows slowdown
2. verify "openssl speed md2" show slowdown
For md2 *alone*, no-asm naturally won't make any difference:-) Fixing
md2 might [and most likely shall] have positive effect on other
algorithms as well, so thanks. A.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [email protected]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
