Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:15:40 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> Cc: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za>, 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: <20020205151540.Z59017@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <20020205231051.GA9710@nagual.pp.ru>; from ache@nagual.pp.ru on Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 02:10:51AM %2B0300 References: <20020205215540.GB8579@nagual.pp.ru> <200202052220.g15MKps32595@greenpeace.grondar.org> <20020205231051.GA9710@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Andrey A. Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> [020205 15:11] wrote: > 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. to address the speed issue you could implement internal functions to save and restore the random() state. (as I've already suggested) -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' Tax deductable donations for FreeBSD: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/ 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?20020205151540.Z59017>