Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 02:10:51 +0300 From: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, des@freebsd.org, cvs-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libpam/modules/pam_unix pam_unix.c Message-ID: <20020205231051.GA9710@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <200202052220.g15MKps32595@greenpeace.grondar.org> References: <20020205215540.GB8579@nagual.pp.ru> <200202052220.g15MKps32595@greenpeace.grondar.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 22:20:46 +0000, Mark Murray wrote: > > 2) Have the same speed compared to random() (or even faster) > > It is three times slower, according to a cheap benchmark. Yes, 3-4 times slower, according to my new test I write more accurately. But for non-looped 7 or 14 pam_unix() random() calls it gains _nothing_, they are very fast comparing to even minimal _net_ delay for YP code they needed. BTW, to clarify my position: I not insist on using arc4random(), I insist on removing random(). You can replace arc4random() with any fastest code you wants. -- Andrey A. Chernov http://ache.pp.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020205231051.GA9710>