--- Day changed Mon Jan 09 2017
00:22 -!- droark [~droark@c-24-22-123-27.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: Later.]     
02:04 -!- roconnor [~roconnor@host-45-58-207-90.dyn.295.ca] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
03:24 -!- jtimon [~quassel@245.30.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #secp256k1     
05:57 -!- waxwing [~waxwing@62.205.214.125] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
06:09 -!- waxwing [~waxwing@62.205.214.125] has joined #secp256k1     
07:47 -!- roconnor [~roconnor@host-45-78-202-142.dyn.295.ca] has joined #secp256k1     
07:51 -!- roconnor [~roconnor@host-45-78-202-142.dyn.295.ca] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
07:51 -!- roconnor [~roconnor@host-45-78-202-142.dyn.295.ca] has joined #secp256k1     
10:05 -!- jtimon [~quassel@245.30.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]     
11:04 -!- jtimon [~quassel@245.30.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #secp256k1     
14:19 < gmaxwell> lol, yea, so fe_get_b32 is 7 times slower than fe_sqr
14:20 < sipa> ugh.
14:20 < gmaxwell> will fix in a moment. :P
14:20 < gmaxwell> also the infinite loop in print_number should something take 0 time.
14:21 < nsh-> #pray4infinity
15:25 -!- nsh- is now known as nsh     
16:17 < gmaxwell> lol, this code really was kind of a impressive work in inefficiency. writing bytes two bits at a time. :P
16:28 < sipa> You're welcome.
18:11 < gmaxwell> it took far longer to fix that than it had any right to.
18:11 < sipa> haha
18:11 < sipa> it think i was silently hoping the compiler unrolled that autatically
18:12 < sipa> but i guess that requires -O71 -funroll-all-the-things -femit-huge-object-code -fyes-i-am-sure
18:14 < nsh> lol     
19:34 -!- jtimon [~quassel@245.30.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
20:11 < gmaxwell> https://github.com/llamasoft/secp256k1_fast_unsafe/commits/master  < good codebase to mine for mutations to improve our tests.
20:11 < gmaxwell> they 'optimized' things in a number of ways that are clearly wrong.
20:14 < gmaxwell> (looks like they later reverted some (or all?) of it... but still interesting!)
21:39 -!- waxwing [~waxwing@62.205.214.125] has quit [Quit: Leaving]