From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f03ffdf470e3c559
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!nx02.iad.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!198.186.194.249.MISMATCH!transit3.readnews.com!transit4.readnews.com!news-out.readnews.com!postnews3.readnews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 07:16:00 -0400
From: "Peter C. Chapin" <pcc482719@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Interesting performance quirk.
References: <4903c066$0$28676$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
 <vutct5-heg.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
In-Reply-To: <vutct5-heg.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4904516f$0$28741$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
Organization: SoVerNet (sover.net)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f87d1b0.news.sover.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=nRdOjb;WNn:^R\TYHhbgi6K6_LM2JZB_3K2Nd7c@<DA23?@`i3kGa5;]g0a;[63Dg1LR:Y]gmWIT6
X-Complaints-To: abuse@sover.net
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2501
Date: 2008-10-26T07:16:00-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jeffrey Creem wrote:

> It seems like it would be interesting to quickly disassembly the inner
> loop on the two machines and see if anything jumps out. From the
> description, it seems like you should be getting identical code.

That might be an educational exercise in any case (for me at least). I
was also thinking of trying to profile the program as a first step in
increasing its performance in general; that might reveal something
interesting as well.

I am also planning to write a similar program in C using OpenSSL's
Blowfish implementation. I want to get a point of comparison to see if
my implementation has "reasonable" performance or not (here I'm assuming
that OpenSSL is reasonable). I'm curious now if the C/OpenSSL version
will also demonstrate this same performance quirk.

Peter