>
> Looks great. I too wonder why they are not inlined (or if they were at
>
one time).
It turns out mono only inlines a method if it's body is 20 bytes or less.
None of the helper functions met this requirement (unfortunately) so they
never got inlined.
You may want to check SHA384/512 which are
Hey,
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 22:12 +0200, Alan McGovern wrote:
> Change in plan, how does a speedup of 70% sound?
>
> Strangely enough, mono wasn't inlining the static helper methods. As
> each of those helpers was only being called once, i inlined them
> manually and performance went through the r
Change in plan, how does a speedup of 70% sound?
Strangely enough, mono wasn't inlining the static helper methods. As each of
those helpers was only being called once, i inlined them manually and
performance went through the roof. It may be worth grabbing a JIT guy and
figuring out why mono is dec
yes, go ahead.
thanks again
Sebastien
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 02:30 +0100, Alan McGovern wrote:
> Applying some of the ideas from the SHA1 patch to sha256 left me with
> a 15% performance boost. Is this good to commit? It passes the nunit
> tests.
>
> Alan.
> __
Applying some of the ideas from the SHA1 patch to sha256 left me with a 15%
performance boost. Is this good to commit? It passes the nunit tests.
Alan.
Index: ChangeLog
===
--- ChangeLog (revision 102167)
+++ ChangeLog (working copy)
