Hi,
I've been working on a new DES implementation for Linux, and ran into
the problem of how to get access to C99 types like uint_fast32_t for
internal (not interface) use. In my tests, key setup on Athlon 64 slows
down by 40% when using u32 instead of uint_fast32_t.
So I wonder if there is any st
Stephen Rothwell wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 13:55:39 +0200 Dag Arne Osvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've been working on a new DES implementation for Linux, and ran into
the problem of how to get access to C99 types like uint_fast32_t for
internal (not interface) use. In my tests
Andreas Schwab wrote:
Dag Arne Osvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Yes, but wouldn't it be much better to avoid code like the following,
which may also be wrong (in terms of speed)?
#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT // or maybe CONFIG_X86_64?
#define fast_u32 u64
#else
#define fast_u32 u32
#end
Al Viro wrote:
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 02:30:11PM +0200, Dag Arne Osvik wrote:
Yes, but wouldn't it be much better to avoid code like the following,
which may also be wrong (in terms of speed)?
#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT // or maybe CONFIG_X86_64?
#define fast_u32 u64
#else
#define fast_u3
Grzegorz Kulewski wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Dag Arne Osvik wrote:
(...) And, at least in theory, long may even provide less than 32 bits.
Are you sure?
My copy of famous C book by B. W. Kernighan and D. Ritchie says that
sizeof(short) <= sizeof(int) <= sizeof(long)
and
sizeof(short)
Herbert Xu wrote:
Dag Arne Osvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
... and with such name 99% will assume (at least at the first reading)
that it _is_ 32bits. We have more than enough portability bugs as it
is, no need to invite more by bad names.
Agreed. The way I see it there a
Renate Meijer wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005, at 12:08 AM, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Apr 03, 2005, at 16:25, Kenneth Johansson wrote:
But is this not exactly what Dag Arne Osvik was trying to do ??
uint_fast32_t means that we want at least 32 bits but it's OK with
more if that happens to be faster on
7 matches
Mail list logo
