On 20 December 2014 at 21:15, Marcus Pollice <marcus.poll...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 16.12.2014 16:33, Sam Bull wrote: >> >> Nevermind, I just realised the performance you're seeing is the other >> way round. I've no idea why Ubuntu's would be faster, that is strange. >> >> > > I'm familiar with Gentoo and several compiler options, but none of these > things apply here. openssl uses hand-optimized assembly code for some > algorithms. Since the peak performance for large data size is approximately > the same, I'd point to other optimizations like memory accesses. But so far > I've failed to replicate the behavior of the Ubuntu binaries and still hope > someone knowledgeable chime in.
Note that these days compilers optimise C at times much better than hand-crafted (crippled) assembly. Plus if one has compatible CPUs the hardware engines kick in thus making comparison harder (e.g. AESNI, RDRAND etc.) You are not showing your build log, the chroot used to build and the package version of a toolchain used.... Note that launchpad.net publishes full build logs for all binaries including the host kernel and toolchain packages used. Note that binaries are preserved in debian/ubuntu and not rebuilt from scratch with each kernel / gcc / binutils uploads, thus one can have binaries published in a stable release built with a toolchain that's no longer available in the archive. Thus you need to compare the toolchain you are using with the one used to build the corresponding openssl binary package you are trying to match on a same architecture. -- Regards, Dimitri. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
