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.