Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
(Heh. Looking at that, I probably should move the 'size' field first,
since that would have different alignment rules, and the struct would be
more tightly packed that way, and initialize better).
I was about to suggest
Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com writes:
-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
-fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i586
-mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -D_GNU_SOURCE=1
thanks. I did again all tests on my machine using these same
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
That said, I don't know if the MPL is ok for X11. I've not looked at
compatibility issues with MPL. For git, we could just ignore the MPL,
since the GPLv2 was acceptable regardless of it.
If MPL isn't ok for X11, then we'd
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:51 AM, Giuseppe Scrivanogscriv...@gnu.org wrote:
Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com writes:
-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
-fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i586
-mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, Steven Noonan wrote:
Interesting. I compared Linus' implementation to the public domain one
by Steve Reid[1]
You _really_ need to talk about what kind of environment you have.
There are three major issues:
- Netburst vs non-netburst
- 32-bit vs 64-bit
- compiler
Hi,
These are the results I reported (median of 5 plus an additional not
considered first run) on the Steve Reid's SHA1 implementation using the
same flags to the compiler that I used for previous tests.
GCC 4.3.3: real0m2.627s
GCC 4.4.1: real0m3.742s
In both cases it showed
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Linus
Torvaldstorva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, Steven Noonan wrote:
Interesting. I compared Linus' implementation to the public domain one
by Steve Reid[1]
You _really_ need to talk about what kind of environment you have.
There
Hi Pádraig,
I tried to reproduce your results but I wasn't able to do it. The
biggest difference on a 300MB file I noticed was approximately 15% using
on both implementations -O2, and 5% using -O3.
My GCC version is gcc (Debian 4.3.3-14) 4.3.3 and the CPU is: Intel(R)
Pentium(R) D CPU 3.20GHz.
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
My GCC version is gcc (Debian 4.3.3-14) 4.3.3 and the CPU is: Intel(R)
Pentium(R) D CPU 3.20GHz.
Netburst is very sensitive to random spill effects, and you can basically
tune things by just code shuffling that just has random effects on the
Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org writes:
I pretty much can guarantee you that it improves things only because it
makes gcc generate crap code, which then hides some of the P4 issues.
I'd also suggest you try gcc-4.4, since that apparently fixes some of the
oddest spill issues.
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
Thanks for the hint. I tried gcc-4.4 and it produces slower code than
4.3 on the gnulib SHA1 implementation and my patch makes it even more!
Check out the asm, see if you can see why. One of the most common problems
with P4's is literally that
Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
Hi Pádraig,
I tried to reproduce your results but I wasn't able to do it. The
biggest difference on a 300MB file I noticed was approximately 15% using
on both implementations -O2, and 5% using -O3.
My GCC version is gcc (Debian 4.3.3-14) 4.3.3 and the CPU is:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
(Heh. Looking at that, I probably should move the 'size' field first,
since that would have different alignment rules, and the struct would be
more tightly packed that way, and initialize better).
I was about to suggest (i.e. post) a patch for
2009/8/14 Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com:
I've noticed before that coreutils hashing utils
were a little behind in performance, but was prompted
to look at it again when I noticed the recently
updated sha1 implementation in git:
2009/8/15 Bryan Donlan bdon...@gmail.com:
coreutils is licensed under GPLv3, and git under GPLv2 (only), so
you'd need permission from all contributors to the implementation in
order to relicense under GPLv3. A quick grep of the history suggests
these contributors to be:
X11 also requires a
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
That said, I don't know if the MPL is ok for X11. I've not looked at
compatibility issues with MPL. For git, we could just ignore the MPL,
since the GPLv2 was acceptable regardless of it.
If MPL isn't ok for X11, then we'd need to make sure that
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 09:12:58PM +0100, John Tapsell wrote:
2009/8/15 Bryan Donlan bdon...@gmail.com:
coreutils is licensed under GPLv3, and git under GPLv2 (only), so
you'd need permission from all contributors to the implementation in
order to relicense under GPLv3. A quick grep of the
I've noticed before that coreutils hashing utils
were a little behind in performance, but was prompted
to look at it again when I noticed the recently
updated sha1 implementation in git:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=history;f=block-sha1;h=d3121f7;hb=pu
Testing that with the attached
18 matches
Mail list logo
