August 20, 2012
I can't understand what command line arguments you are using for LDC and GDC, but both of them have many useful optimization arguments (some of them are not easy to use like link time optimization in LDC).

Bye,
bearophile
August 20, 2012
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 19:26:34 -0500, Nvirjskly <nvirjskly@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, 19 August 2012 at 23:48:36 UTC, 1100110 wrote:
>> Here are my results!  iirc -release implies -noboundscheck..
>> Also I am on x64, and these files only compile to 32bit. So there could be
>> performance missing there.
>
> Wow, thanks. It looks like ldc2 does not play nice with std.bigint, which is all the more reason for me to use my own version. If you want to see it run and not assert out, remove benchmark_bbs(); from main() in benchamrk.d
>
> std.bigint seems to have a lot of problems as I had to repeatedly mess around with things that SHOULD work. I think I should file a few bug reports :/
>
> I think GDC is dying because I have scope imports scattered everywhere and it might not play nice with those... bah.
>
> So it looks like ldc2 produces somewhat faster code, if not for the fact that it did not play nice with std.bigint and that gdc does not follow the reference compiler in its support of scope imports... :/
>
> So basically my code is dmd only atm and can be easily converted to support ldc2, and maybe gdc if scope imports are the only problem...
>
> On the topic of Whirlpool, I'm almost done a naive non-optimised version, and just need to make the S-box mixin.

Really?  that was quick.

I didn't get very far with my attempt.  =P

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
August 20, 2012
> Really?  that was quick.
>
> I didn't get very far with my attempt.  =P

Ok, committing a broken version. Broken in the sense that it does not work correctly as of yet. *Something* is not working properly. I work on finding out what exactly some more today and tommorrow, but it is in a "usable" state, whereby usable I mean that it returns hash values, just not ones matching any test vectors... I have to figure out where my silly mistake is.
August 20, 2012
On Monday, 20 August 2012 at 02:28:25 UTC, Nvirjskly wrote:
>
>> Really?  that was quick.
>>
>> I didn't get very far with my attempt.  =P
>
> Ok, committing a broken version. Broken in the sense that it does not work correctly as of yet. *Something* is not working properly. I work on finding out what exactly some more today and tommorrow, but it is in a "usable" state, whereby usable I mean that it returns hash values, just not ones matching any test vectors... I have to figure out where my silly mistake is.

Quickly replying that I already found a few mistakes, and am looking for more.
1 2
Next ›   Last »