Re: SHA-256 performance on x86
From: Andrew Morgan (Andrew.Morgan_at_telkomsa.net)
Date: 10/17/03
- Next message: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Controversial paper - Good response article on ZDNet"
- Previous message: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: T.S.D. Why do you use the word "uber" so much?"
- In reply to: Nudge: "Re: SHA-256 performance on x86"
- Next in thread: Grumble: "Re: SHA-256 performance on x86"
- Reply: Grumble: "Re: SHA-256 performance on x86"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:26:52 +0200
Nudge wrote:
> He already has, in reply to a post you wrote...
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3f8d51ec$0$23594$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.au
>
Sorry, let me be more specific. I am looking particularly for #inst,
cycles/bl and cycles/block.
- Next message: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Controversial paper - Good response article on ZDNet"
- Previous message: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: T.S.D. Why do you use the word "uber" so much?"
- In reply to: Nudge: "Re: SHA-256 performance on x86"
- Next in thread: Grumble: "Re: SHA-256 performance on x86"
- Reply: Grumble: "Re: SHA-256 performance on x86"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
