From 1809e858bbc1c3e24ffebdef173871161a036fa6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andy Polyakov Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 10:15:58 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Eliminate compiler warnings and throw in performance table. --- crypto/bn/asm/x86_64-gcc.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) diff --git a/crypto/bn/asm/x86_64-gcc.c b/crypto/bn/asm/x86_64-gcc.c index 450e8e4322..d13ec5a468 100644 --- a/crypto/bn/asm/x86_64-gcc.c +++ b/crypto/bn/asm/x86_64-gcc.c @@ -13,20 +13,42 @@ * A. Well, that's because this code is basically a quick-n-dirty * proof-of-concept hack. As you can see it's implemented with * inline assembler, which means that you're bound to GCC and that - * there must be a room for fine-tuning. + * there might be enough room for further improvement. * * Q. Why inline assembler? - * A. x86_64 features own ABI I'm not familiar with. Which is why - * I decided to let the compiler take care of subroutine - * prologue/epilogue as well as register allocation. + * A. x86_64 features own ABI which I'm not familiar with. This is + * why I decided to let the compiler take care of subroutine + * prologue/epilogue as well as register allocation. For reference. + * Win64 implements different ABI for AMD64, different from Linux. * * Q. How much faster does it get? - * A. Unfortunately people sitting on x86_64 hardware are prohibited - * to disclose the performance numbers, so they (SuSE labs to be - * specific) wouldn't tell me. However! Very similar coding technique - * (reaching out for 128-bit result from 64x64-bit multiplication) - * results in >3 times performance improvement on MIPS and I see no - * reason why gain on x86_64 would be so much different:-) + * A. 'apps/openssl speed rsa dsa' output with no-asm: + * + * sign verify sign/s verify/s + * rsa 512 bits 0.0006s 0.0001s 1683.8 18456.2 + * rsa 1024 bits 0.0028s 0.0002s 356.0 6407.0 + * rsa 2048 bits 0.0172s 0.0005s 58.0 1957.8 + * rsa 4096 bits 0.1155s 0.0018s 8.7 555.6 + * sign verify sign/s verify/s + * dsa 512 bits 0.0005s 0.0006s 2100.8 1768.3 + * dsa 1024 bits 0.0014s 0.0018s 692.3 559.2 + * dsa 2048 bits 0.0049s 0.0061s 204.7 165.0 + * + * 'apps/openssl speed rsa dsa' output with this module: + * + * sign verify sign/s verify/s + * rsa 512 bits 0.0004s 0.0000s 2767.1 33297.9 + * rsa 1024 bits 0.0012s 0.0001s 867.4 14674.7 + * rsa 2048 bits 0.0061s 0.0002s 164.0 5270.0 + * rsa 4096 bits 0.0384s 0.0006s 26.1 1650.8 + * sign verify sign/s verify/s + * dsa 512 bits 0.0002s 0.0003s 4442.2 3786.3 + * dsa 1024 bits 0.0005s 0.0007s 1835.1 1497.4 + * dsa 2048 bits 0.0016s 0.0020s 620.4 504.6 + * + * For the reference. IA-32 assembler implementation performs + * very much like 64-bit code compiled with no-asm on the same + * machine. */ #define BN_ULONG unsigned long @@ -151,7 +173,7 @@ BN_ULONG bn_div_words(BN_ULONG h, BN_ULONG l, BN_ULONG d) } BN_ULONG bn_add_words (BN_ULONG *rp, BN_ULONG *ap, BN_ULONG *bp,int n) -{ BN_ULONG ret,i; +{ BN_ULONG ret=0,i=0; if (n <= 0) return 0; @@ -174,7 +196,7 @@ BN_ULONG bn_add_words (BN_ULONG *rp, BN_ULONG *ap, BN_ULONG *bp,int n) #ifndef SIMICS BN_ULONG bn_sub_words (BN_ULONG *rp, BN_ULONG *ap, BN_ULONG *bp,int n) -{ BN_ULONG ret,i; +{ BN_ULONG ret=0,i=0; if (n <= 0) return 0; @@ -318,7 +340,6 @@ BN_ULONG bn_sub_words(BN_ULONG *r, BN_ULONG *a, BN_ULONG *b, int n) void bn_mul_comba8(BN_ULONG *r, BN_ULONG *a, BN_ULONG *b) { - BN_ULONG bl,bh; BN_ULONG t1,t2; BN_ULONG c1,c2,c3; @@ -423,7 +444,6 @@ void bn_mul_comba8(BN_ULONG *r, BN_ULONG *a, BN_ULONG *b) void bn_mul_comba4(BN_ULONG *r, BN_ULONG *a, BN_ULONG *b) { - BN_ULONG bl,bh; BN_ULONG t1,t2; BN_ULONG c1,c2,c3; @@ -464,7 +484,6 @@ void bn_mul_comba4(BN_ULONG *r, BN_ULONG *a, BN_ULONG *b) void bn_sqr_comba8(BN_ULONG *r, BN_ULONG *a) { - BN_ULONG bl,bh; BN_ULONG t1,t2; BN_ULONG c1,c2,c3; @@ -541,7 +560,6 @@ void bn_sqr_comba8(BN_ULONG *r, BN_ULONG *a) void bn_sqr_comba4(BN_ULONG *r, BN_ULONG *a) { - BN_ULONG bl,bh; BN_ULONG t1,t2; BN_ULONG c1,c2,c3; -- 2.40.0