Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/03/15/10:31:57

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: RFP: UPX (Was Re: reducing binary distribution size with UPX)
From: Roger <roger_maillist AT alltel DOT net>
To: egor duda <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <>
<FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA760014BC8 AT itdomain003 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au>
<2070817630 DOT 20020315164227 AT logos-m DOT ru>
X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0.2-4mdk
Date: 15 Mar 2002 10:28:56 -0500
Message-Id: <1016206164.11719.5.camel@localhost2.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, 2002-03-15 at 08:42, egor duda wrote:
> Hi!
> Friday, 15 March, 2002 Robert Collins robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au wrot=
> RC> I vote for including UPX... and Lapo makes two. Do we need a third? A=
> RC> are there any objections?
> Does anybody ever tried to measure if upx impose any performance
> penalties? If i understand things correctly, upx compress executable
> file and attach a small "decompressor" stub to it. Then, when
> executable starts, this stub decompresses original executable image.
> This will totally defeat the features that most modern OSes have,
> mapping pages from executable and loading them on demand, sharing
> common read-only pages between different instances of one application,
> etc. I really don't understand what's the point in saving disk storage
> worth several cents (1byte =3D=3D $1e-7), while increasing memory
> footprint and reducing speed. Hey, just read upx docs, they contain
> all these points already.
> Not that i'm against inclusion of upx to cygwin distro -- it's a
> normal package like many others after all, but i really don't
> understand why somebody would want to use such a program.
> Egor.            mailto:deo AT logos-m DOT ru ICQ 5165414 FidoNet 2:5020/496.19

i tend to agree. keep it basic. keep it simple.  you could probabely
spend a life-time just trying to shrink size, etc.

one might see a diff if all files were compressed with upx, but as egor
mentioned, this would probabely seriously hinder system performance.

not too metion, the binary versions are still i386 only.  i already see
a big difference just recompiling for i686 platform, but how many users
really re-compile cygwin for usage?
Verify my pgp/gnupg signature on my HomePage:

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see



- Raw text -

  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019