Re: sha3-d
On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 07:00:06 UTC, bauss wrote: What was the reasoning? I can't imagine it being worse than some of the terrible modules like std.json? I have nothing against the decision, but you can read the comments here: https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/7713 I should still add support for some kind of acceleration (e.g., core.simd). The liberty I have with this being a DUB package is that I could even use intel-intrinsics.
Re: sha3-d
On Friday, 29 October 2021 at 15:13:38 UTC, dd wrote: When I submitted my work to Phobos[1] earlier this year, it was rejected. (Understandably) What was the reasoning? I can't imagine it being worse than some of the terrible modules like std.json? In fact it looks very nice.
Re: sha3-d
On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 09:59:38 UTC, Johan wrote: The readme mentions compilation with `-b release-nobounds`. 1. These are flags for DUB (?), can you add/replace it with the conversion to actual compiler flags? I can do a manual compilation section. Though, it is documentation online: https://dub.pm/package-format-sdl.html#build-types 2. Did you test without removing bounds checks? If there is a noticable performance drop, I think it'd be very worthwhile to modify the code such that there is no penalty of boundschecks (at -O3); I think in theory only very few bounds checks are needed. Enabling good performance _with_ boundschecks on means that the user is not forced to build his whole project without boundschecks, or move to separate compilation. I haven't tested it with bounds checking. I could do a round of benchmarks with different compilers and build types.
Re: sha3-d
On Friday, 29 October 2021 at 16:02:14 UTC, Luís Ferreira wrote: On Fri, 2021-10-29 at 15:13 +, dd via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: Hello all! When I submitted my work to Phobos[1] earlier this year, it was rejected. (Understandably) So I made a DUB package and forgot to announce it here! Package: https://code.dlang.org/packages/sha3-d Source: https://github.com/dd86k/sha3-d [1] https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/7713 Amazing work dd! Are you considering implementing it with SIMD instructions with something like intel-intrinsics? That would be interesting, especially this is my kind of stuff. I'll be up to do it.
Re: sha3-d
On Friday, 29 October 2021 at 15:33:57 UTC, dd wrote: On Friday, 29 October 2021 at 15:18:39 UTC, WebFreak001 wrote: Would be cool having benchmarks comparing this to other implementations if great performance is a goal, as you already mentioned in your README it's much faster than keccack-tiny. From memory, I remember getting ~10MiB/s when I first implemented keccak-tiny from C to D. When I rewrote the package to my liking, and I got ~130MiB/s. But these tests were in a VM on my i7-3770 so it's not really a conclusive thing. The readme mentions compilation with `-b release-nobounds`. 1. These are flags for DUB (?), can you add/replace it with the conversion to actual compiler flags? 2. Did you test without removing bounds checks? If there is a noticable performance drop, I think it'd be very worthwhile to modify the code such that there is no penalty of boundschecks (at -O3); I think in theory only very few bounds checks are needed. Enabling good performance _with_ boundschecks on means that the user is not forced to build his whole project without boundschecks, or move to separate compilation. cheers, Johan
Re: sha3-d
On Fri, 2021-10-29 at 15:13 +, dd via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > Hello all! > > When I submitted my work to Phobos[1] earlier this year, it was > rejected. (Understandably) > > So I made a DUB package and forgot to announce it here! > > Package: https://code.dlang.org/packages/sha3-d > Source: https://github.com/dd86k/sha3-d > > [1] https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/7713 Amazing work dd! Are you considering implementing it with SIMD instructions with something like intel-intrinsics? -- Sincerely, Luís Ferreira @ lsferreira.net signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: sha3-d
On Friday, 29 October 2021 at 15:18:39 UTC, WebFreak001 wrote: Awesome! Haven't had the need to use SHA-3 yet myself, but given all the other growing ecosystems where this could be of use it's nice to have this high-performance implementation already. SHA-3 has been in use in SQLite and in Euthereum for a while, which are enormous projects. SHA-1 is on life support with sha1cd and SHA-2 faces length extension attacks (even with SHA-2-256 and SHA-2-512 but not SHA-2-512/256). Would be cool having benchmarks comparing this to other implementations if great performance is a goal, as you already mentioned in your README it's much faster than keccack-tiny. From memory, I remember getting ~10MiB/s when I first implemented keccak-tiny from C to D. When I rewrote the package to my liking, and I got ~130MiB/s. But these tests were in a VM on my i7-3770 so it's not really a conclusive thing. I could do a benchmark again.
Re: sha3-d
On Friday, 29 October 2021 at 15:13:38 UTC, dd wrote: Hello all! When I submitted my work to Phobos[1] earlier this year, it was rejected. (Understandably) So I made a DUB package and forgot to announce it here! Package: https://code.dlang.org/packages/sha3-d Source: https://github.com/dd86k/sha3-d [1] https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/7713 Awesome! Haven't had the need to use SHA-3 yet myself, but given all the other growing ecosystems where this could be of use it's nice to have this high-performance implementation already. Would be cool having benchmarks comparing this to other implementations if great performance is a goal, as you already mentioned in your README it's much faster than keccack-tiny.
sha3-d
Hello all! When I submitted my work to Phobos[1] earlier this year, it was rejected. (Understandably) So I made a DUB package and forgot to announce it here! Package: https://code.dlang.org/packages/sha3-d Source: https://github.com/dd86k/sha3-d [1] https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/7713
