Re: LibTomMath forked [SSE2 addons]
From: Phil Carmody (thefatphil_demunged_at_yahoo.co.uk)
Date: 06/28/04
- Next message: Nomen Nescio: "Re: How secure is SSL emails?"
- Previous message: David Oxley: "DH Question"
- In reply to: Tom St Denis: "LibTomMath forked [SSE2 addons]"
- Next in thread: Tom St Denis: "Re: LibTomMath forked [SSE2 addons]"
- Reply: Tom St Denis: "Re: LibTomMath forked [SSE2 addons]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 28 Jun 2004 14:12:13 +0300
Tom St Denis <tom@securescience.net> writes:
> I said I'd never put asm messyness in any mainline LT project... so I forked
> LTM and created LTM-SSE. It's a very direct port of LTM that has carefully
> dropped in SSE2 optimizations [in four files only I might add...]
>
> Here are the results [for Montgomery exptmod] with GCC 3.3.3 on a 2.8Ghz
> Northwood P4.
>
> LTM-SSE
> CLK_PER_SEC == 2808950608
> Exponentiating 513-bit => 611/sec, 5659540452 ticks
>
> LTM-031
> CLK_PER_SEC == 2810915412
> Exponentiating 513-bit => 269/sec, 5666527812 ticks
That latter figure looks _way_ off the mark. A 512-bit (Barrett) expmod
in plain C (using gcc) on my Duron/900 takes <1260000 ticks, which is
716/sec.
Did you try a Barrett rather than Monty method? I considered Monty
briefly, but prefered Barrett's simplicity.
Phil
-- 1st bug in MS win2k source code found after 20 minutes: scanline.cpp 2nd and 3rd bug found after 10 more minutes: gethost.c Both non-exploitable. (The 2nd/3rd ones might be, depending on the CRTL)
- Next message: Nomen Nescio: "Re: How secure is SSL emails?"
- Previous message: David Oxley: "DH Question"
- In reply to: Tom St Denis: "LibTomMath forked [SSE2 addons]"
- Next in thread: Tom St Denis: "Re: LibTomMath forked [SSE2 addons]"
- Reply: Tom St Denis: "Re: LibTomMath forked [SSE2 addons]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
