diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'crypto/md4/md4_locl.h')
| -rw-r--r-- | crypto/md4/md4_locl.h | 42 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 42 deletions
diff --git a/crypto/md4/md4_locl.h b/crypto/md4/md4_locl.h index 7e219b17ea..c8085b0ead 100644 --- a/crypto/md4/md4_locl.h +++ b/crypto/md4/md4_locl.h @@ -65,41 +65,13 @@ #define MD4_LONG_LOG2 2 /* default to 32 bits */ #endif -void md4_block_host_order (MD4_CTX *c, const void *p,size_t num); void md4_block_data_order (MD4_CTX *c, const void *p,size_t num); -#if defined(__i386) || defined(__i386__) || defined(_M_IX86) || defined(__INTEL__) -/* - * *_block_host_order is expected to handle aligned data while - * *_block_data_order - unaligned. As algorithm and host (x86) - * are in this case of the same "endianness" these two are - * otherwise indistinguishable. But normally you don't want to - * call the same function because unaligned access in places - * where alignment is expected is usually a "Bad Thing". Indeed, - * on RISCs you get punished with BUS ERROR signal or *severe* - * performance degradation. Intel CPUs are in turn perfectly - * capable of loading unaligned data without such drastic side - * effect. Yes, they say it's slower than aligned load, but no - * exception is generated and therefore performance degradation - * is *incomparable* with RISCs. What we should weight here is - * costs of unaligned access against costs of aligning data. - * According to my measurements allowing unaligned access results - * in ~9% performance improvement on Pentium II operating at - * 266MHz. I won't be surprised if the difference will be higher - * on faster systems:-) - * - * <appro@fy.chalmers.se> - */ -#define md4_block_data_order md4_block_host_order -#endif - #define DATA_ORDER_IS_LITTLE_ENDIAN #define HASH_LONG MD4_LONG -#define HASH_LONG_LOG2 MD4_LONG_LOG2 #define HASH_CTX MD4_CTX #define HASH_CBLOCK MD4_CBLOCK -#define HASH_LBLOCK MD4_LBLOCK #define HASH_UPDATE MD4_Update #define HASH_TRANSFORM MD4_Transform #define HASH_FINAL MD4_Final @@ -110,21 +82,7 @@ void md4_block_data_order (MD4_CTX *c, const void *p,size_t num); ll=(c)->C; HOST_l2c(ll,(s)); \ ll=(c)->D; HOST_l2c(ll,(s)); \ } while (0) -#define HASH_BLOCK_HOST_ORDER md4_block_host_order -#if !defined(L_ENDIAN) || defined(md4_block_data_order) #define HASH_BLOCK_DATA_ORDER md4_block_data_order -/* - * Little-endians (Intel and Alpha) feel better without this. - * It looks like memcpy does better job than generic - * md4_block_data_order on copying-n-aligning input data. - * But frankly speaking I didn't expect such result on Alpha. - * On the other hand I've got this with egcs-1.0.2 and if - * program is compiled with another (better?) compiler it - * might turn out other way around. - * - * <appro@fy.chalmers.se> - */ -#endif #include "md32_common.h" |