From:	Nate Eldredge <neldredge AT hmc DOT edu>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: e: Why the executables r so big ????
Date:	Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:55:52 -0700
Organization:	Harvey Mudd College
Lines:	17
Message-ID:	<37E29CC8.CE05946A@hmc.edu>
References:	<c_LD3.2608$_3 DOT 44552 AT news DOT tpnet DOT pl> <37E01676 DOT D74EEBDC AT pmail DOT net> <02e54bec DOT 79e180d5 AT usw-ex0102-016 DOT remarq DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	mercury.st.hmc.edu
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Trace:	nntp1.interworld.net 937598134 15052 134.173.45.219 (17 Sep 1999 19:55:34 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:	usenet AT nntp1 DOT interworld DOT net
NNTP-Posting-Date:	17 Sep 1999 19:55:34 GMT
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.13pre7 i586)
X-Accept-Language:	en
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Varence wrote:
> 
>   Packers like UPX don't improve your binary's performance
> in any way.  They pack the binary (as the name suggests) so
> it's compressed.  It doesn't do any optimization on the
> code or change how the routines are used within it.
>     So essentially, not only does packing a binary not
> improve it's performance, it actually adds a small overhead
> at initialization for the unpacking process.

But that is balanced by the faster load time, since only 200K might have
to be read off the disk instead of 700K.  So it could make the program
"seem" faster.
-- 

Nate Eldredge
neldredge AT hmc DOT edu

- Raw text -