Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 18:49:54 -0400 (AST) From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> To: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com> Cc: Charles Henrich <henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu>, ejs@bfd.com, jmb@freefall.freebsd.org, jkh@time.cdrom.com, taob@risc.org, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 2.2 Compiler slower than 2.1? (was RSA 56-bit key challenge) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970302184847.9863L-100000@thelab.hub.org> In-Reply-To: <199703022246.OAA07379@rah.star-gate.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 2 Mar 1997, Amancio Hasty wrote: > Which brings the interesting point since gcc in 3.0-current is inefficient > should we also recompile msun on a 2.1 system for PPRO systems? > Who knows we may be able to break the 400k keys/sec before the end > of the day 8) > This all kinda becomes irrelevant when the new code comes out, no? :) Just curious...but anyone out there with enough experience to look at the ASM_I486 code and know whether there is a way of optimizing *that* for both Pentium and PPro? > > Amancio > > >From The Desk Of Charles Henrich : > > > On Sun, 2 Mar 1997, Charles Henrich wrote: > > > > > > > Hmm the one amancio put up seems like the old one. Try the one at > > > > ftp.scnc.k12.mi.us/pub/misc/rc5-56-freebsd > > > > > > > Same results, but you mentioned something about new math libs? > > > I'm running 3.0-current over here (well, current as far as before all > > > the lite2 instabilities)... > > > > You need to rebuild /usr/lib/msun after editing /etc/make.conf to enable > > HAVE_FPU > > > > -Crh > > > > Charles Henrich Michigan State University henrich@msu.edu > > > > http://pilot.msu.edu/~henrich >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.970302184847.9863L-100000>