Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/03/15/10:31:57
On Fri, 2002-03-15 at 08:42, egor duda wrote:
> 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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Raw text -