On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Adam Langley a...@google.com wrote:
Thanks. So far that version is good to ~1B random tests. I'll leave it
going until Monday.
It's good for ~6B random tests.
Of course, that's not as compelling for 64-bit code as it would be for
32-bit, but I think we can
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Andy Polyakov via RT r...@openssl.org wrote:
Patching went wrong for you. As you seem to operate in 1.0.2 context
attached is corresponding ecp_nistz256.pl.
Thanks. So far that version is good to ~1B random tests. I'll leave it
going until Monday.
Cheers
AGL
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 6:33 AM, Andy Polyakov via RT r...@openssl.org wrote:
Attached. A little bit worse performance on some CPUs. I also took
opportunity to harmonize ecp_nistz256_from_mont by applying same pattern
for reduction. The patch is cumulative, i.e. is not incremental to
previously
Attached. A little bit worse performance on some CPUs. I also took
opportunity to harmonize ecp_nistz256_from_mont by applying same pattern
for reduction. The patch is cumulative, i.e. is not incremental to
previously posted one[s], and addresses both problems, originally
reported one and
