FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.

» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo User

LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-13-2012, 07:22 PM
Florian Philipp
Default hard drive encryption

> This thread is becoming ridiculously long. Just as a last side-note:
> One of the primary reasons that the IA64 architecture failed was that it
> relied on the compiler to optimize the code in order to exploit the
> massive instruction-level parallelism the CPU offered. Compilers never
> became good enough for the job. Of course, that happended in the
> nineties and we have much better compilers now (and x86 is easier to
> handle for compilers). But on the other hand: That was Intel's next big
> thing and if they couldn't make the compilers work, I have no reason to
> believe in their efficiency now.
> Regards,
> Florian Philipp

Argh, just as I want to quit: I had the dates garbled up. IA64 came out
in 2001 but the compiler design was of course a product of the late
nineties and the design process started mid-nineties.
Old 03-13-2012, 08:05 PM
Frank Steinmetzger
Default hard drive encryption

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.

Thread Tools

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org