This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 07:25:52PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote: > With salt == "$1$" I get this profile: > 84.70% a.out libcrypt-2.15.so [.] __md5_process_block > 5.98% a.out libc-2.15.so [.] __memcpy_ssse3_back > 4.71% a.out libcrypt-2.15.so [.] __md5_process_bytes > 1.92% a.out libcrypt-2.15.so [.] __md5_crypt_r > 1.62% a.out libcrypt-2.15.so [.] __md5_finish_ctx > > Again, __md5_crypt_r is within noise. That's good. > > >> Another thing that can be done is to look at the code generated for the > >> relevant file before and after the patch - I'd expect very little change. > > I like this method much more, but there is actually a change. > The original binary has calls to b64_from_24bit.7858 (the nested function), > while in the binary built with my patch these calls are inlined. > Of course, this is a feature of a particular version of GCC, not of > the glibc code. Given that this does not have a very big impact, I'm inclined to accepting this change. I'll push it in on Thursday after noon UTC if nobody objects. Siddhesh
Attachment:
pgpNr074qBTz7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |