On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 07:58:55PM +0100, Florian Philipp wrote: > >> From what I can see in the kernel sources, there is a generic AES > >> implementation using nothing but portable C code and then there is > >> "aes-i586" assembler code with "aes_glue" C code. > > > >> So I assume the i586 > >> version is better for you --- unless GCC suddenly got a lot better at > >> optimizing code. > > > > Since when, exactly? GCC isn't the best compiler at optimization, but > > I fully expect current versions to produce better code for x86-64 than > > hand-tuned i586. Wider registers, more registers, crypto acceleration > > instructions and SIMD instructions are all very nice to have. I don't > > know the specifics of AES, though, or what kind of crypto algorithm it > > is, so it's entirely possible that one can't effectively parallelize > > it except in some relatively unique circumstances. > > > > One sec. We are talking about an Core2 Duo running in 32bit mode, right? > That's what the i686 reference in the question meant --- or at least, > that's what I assumed.
Sorry, I forgot to mention that I'm running 32 bit, yes. I don't really see the benefit of 64 bit for my use case. For all I know, the executables get bigger and my poor old laptop will have to shuffle more bits around. :) However, hardware AES would be *the* reason for me to, instead of a netbook, buy something with an i5 in my next laptop, some time in the distant future. -- Gruß | Greetings | Qapla' I forbid any use of my email addresses with Facebook services. Ein Computer stürzt nur ab, wenn der Text lange nicht gespeichert wurde.
pgpU3gNUbjZL6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
