# Ivy Bridge 1.80(+7%)
# Haswell 0.55(+93%) (if system doesn't support AVX)
# Broadwell 0.45(+110%)(if system doesn't support AVX)
+# Skylake 0.44(+110%)(if system doesn't support AVX)
# Bulldozer 1.49(+27%)
# Silvermont 2.88(+13%)
# CPUs such as Sandy and Ivy Bridge can execute it, the code performs
# sub-optimally in comparison to above mentioned version. But thanks
# to Ilya Albrekht and Max Locktyukhin of Intel Corp. we knew that
-# it performs in 0.41 cycles per byte on Haswell processor, and in
-# 0.29 on Broadwell.
+# it performs in 0.41 cycles per byte on Haswell processor, in
+# 0.29 on Broadwell, and in 0.36 on Skylake.
#
# [1] http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=2900&user=guest&pass=guest
# experimental alternative. special thing about is that there
# no dependency between the two multiplications...
mov \$`0xE1<<1`,%eax
- mov \$0xA040608020C0E000,%r10 # ((7..0)·0xE0)&0xff
+ mov \$0xA040608020C0E000,%r10 # ((7..0)·0xE0)&0xff
mov \$0x07,%r11d
movq %rax,$T1
movq %r10,$T2
movq %r11,$T3 # borrow $T3
pand $Xi,$T3
- pshufb $T3,$T2 # ($Xi&7)·0xE0
+ pshufb $T3,$T2 # ($Xi&7)·0xE0
movq %rax,$T3
- pclmulqdq \$0x00,$Xi,$T1 # ·(0xE1<<1)
+ pclmulqdq \$0x00,$Xi,$T1 # ·(0xE1<<1)
pxor $Xi,$T2
pslldq \$15,$T2
paddd $T2,$T2 # <<(64+56+1)
je .Lskip4x
sub \$0x30,$len
- mov \$0xA040608020C0E000,%rax # ((7..0)·0xE0)&0xff
+ mov \$0xA040608020C0E000,%rax # ((7..0)·0xE0)&0xff
movdqu 0x30($Htbl),$Hkey3
movdqu 0x40($Htbl),$Hkey4