On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:16:18PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > FWIW, it's not 10%. The best I measured was ~4% on a very > hashcmp-limited operation, and I suspect even that may be highly > dependent on the compiler. We might be able to improve more by > sprinkling more asserts around, but there are 75 mentions of > the_hash_algo->rawsz. I wouldn't want to an assert at each one. > > I don't mind doing one or a handful of these asserts as part of v2.19 if > we want to try to reclaim those few percent. But I suspect the very > first commit in any further hash-transition work is just going to be to > rip them all out. I expect that's going to be the case as well. I have patches that wire up actual SHA-256 support in my hash-impl branch. However, having said that, I'm happy to defer to whatever everyone else thinks is best for 2.19. The assert solution would be fine with me in this situation, and if we need to pull it out in the future, that's okay with me. I don't really have a strong opinion on this either way, so if someone else does, please say so. I have somewhat more limited availability over the next couple days, as I'm travelling on business, but I'm happy to review a patch (and it seems like Peff has one minus the actual commit message). -- brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
