x86_64 assembly pack: fill some blanks in Ryzen results.

Reviewed-by: NBernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>

crypto/aes/asm/aesni-x86_64.pl

@@ -181,7 +181,7 @@
 # Silvermont	5.75/3.54	3.56	4.12	3.87(*)	4.11
 # Goldmont	3.82/1.26	1.26	1.29	1.29	1.50
 # Bulldozer	5.77/0.70	0.72	0.90	0.70	0.95
-# Ryzen		2.71/0.35	0.35	0.44	?	?
+# Ryzen		2.71/0.35	0.35	0.44	0.38	0.49
 #
 # (*)	Atom Silvermont ECB result is suboptimal because of penalties
 #	incurred by operations on %xmm8-15. As ECB is not considered

crypto/chacha/asm/chacha-x86_64.pl

@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@
 # Goldmont	10.6/+17%	5.10/-		3.28
 # Sledgehammer	7.28/+52%	-/14.2(ii)	-
 # Bulldozer	9.66/+28%	9.85/11.1	3.06(iv)
-# Ryzen		5.96		?		2.40        2.09
+# Ryzen		5.96/+50%	5.19/-		2.40        2.09
 # VIA Nano	10.5/+46%	6.72/8.60	6.05
 #
 # (i)	compared to older gcc 3.x one can observe >2x improvement on

crypto/poly1305/asm/poly1305-x86_64.pl

@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@
 # VIA Nano	1.82/+150%	-
 # Sledgehammer	1.38/+160%	-
 # Bulldozer	2.30/+130%	0.97
-# Ryzen		1.15/?		1.08		1.18
+# Ryzen		1.15/+200%	1.08		1.18
 #
 # (*)	improvement coefficients relative to clang are more modest and
 #	are ~50% on most processors, in both cases we are comparing to

crypto/sha/asm/sha1-x86_64.pl

@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@
 # Haswell	5.45		4.15/+31%	3.57/+53%
 # Skylake	5.18		4.06/+28%	3.54/+46%
 # Bulldozer	9.11		5.95/+53%
-# Ryzen		4.75		?		1.93/+150%(**)
+# Ryzen		4.75		3.80/+24%	1.93/+150%(**)
 # VIA Nano	9.32		7.15/+30%
 # Atom		10.3		9.17/+12%
 # Silvermont	13.1(*)		9.37/+40%

crypto/sha/asm/sha512-x86_64.pl

@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@
 # Haswell	12.2	9.28(+31%)  7.80(+56%)	    7.66    5.40(+42%)
 # Skylake	11.4	9.03(+26%)  7.70(+48%)      7.25    5.20(+40%)
 # Bulldozer	21.1	13.6(+54%)  13.6(+54%(***)) 13.5    8.58(+57%)
-# Ryzen		11.0	?           2.05(+440%)     7.05    5.67(+20%)
+# Ryzen		11.0	9.02(+22%)  2.05(+440%)     7.05    5.67(+20%)
 # VIA Nano	23.0	16.5(+39%)  -		    14.7    -
 # Atom		23.0	18.9(+22%)  -		    14.7    -
 # Silvermont	27.4	20.6(+33%)  -               17.5    -