From c6709b89c43f2ba084d347e42e14f3f66f8846bd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andy Polyakov Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:59:25 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Couple other benchmark comparisons for wp-x86_64.pl. --- crypto/whrlpool/asm/wp-x86_64.pl | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/crypto/whrlpool/asm/wp-x86_64.pl b/crypto/whrlpool/asm/wp-x86_64.pl index cbdbb8ea7e..3855382036 100644 --- a/crypto/whrlpool/asm/wp-x86_64.pl +++ b/crypto/whrlpool/asm/wp-x86_64.pl @@ -12,9 +12,10 @@ # to 32-bit MMX version executed on same CPU. So why did I bother? # Well, it's faster than gcc 3.3.2 generated code by over 50%, and # over 80% faster than PathScale 1.4, an "ambitious" commercial -# compiler. What is it with x86_64 compilers? It's not the first -# example when they fail to generate more optimal code, when I -# believe they had *all* chances to... +# compiler. Furthermore it surpasses gcc 3.4.3 by 170% and Sun Studio +# 10 - by 360%[!]... What is it with x86_64 compilers? It's not the +# first example when they fail to generate more optimal code, when +# I believe they had *all* chances to... # # Note that register and stack frame layout are virtually identical # to 32-bit MMX version, except that %r8-15 are used instead of -- 2.25.1