X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
From:	rugxulo AT gmail DOT com
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Why "upx --brute" might be a bad idea...
Date:	Thu, 01 Nov 2007 03:13:40 -0000
Organization:	http://groups.google.com
Lines:	38
Message-ID:	<1193886820.661951.171990@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>
References:	<4728e78c$0$16659$9b4e6d93 AT newsspool3 DOT arcor-online DOT net>
	<1193880778 DOT 092368 DOT 173290 AT y42g2000hsy DOT googlegroups DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	65.13.115.246
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Trace:	posting.google.com 1193886820 21153 127.0.0.1 (1 Nov 2007 03:13:40 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:	groups-abuse AT google DOT com
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Thu, 1 Nov 2007 03:13:40 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To:	<1193880778.092368.173290@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent:	G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.8) Gecko/20071008 Firefox/2.0.0.8,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To:	groups-abuse AT google DOT com
Injection-Info:	57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.13.115.246;
	posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Oct 31, 8:32 pm, RayeR <gl DOT  DOT  DOT  AT centrum DOT cz> wrote:
> Yes as we discused it there it have quite important effect on compiler
> speed.
>
> Here's my benchmark. I used latest libjpeg 0.6 sources for testing.
> And I'm very surprised how does it so different even on such fast CPU
> as C2D is! Numbers says it clear (make all):
> LZMA: 41s
> NRV (--best): 21s
> uncompressed: 19s

I'm the one who started all this discussion on another forum.   :-)

Anyways, UPXing DJGPP compiler .EXEs is good for lowering bandwidth
(e.g. DJ's slow P2 server). Of course, nobody ever did listen to me
about using AdvanceComp (advzip) for the .ZIPs.  :-P

http://advancemame.sourceforge.net/comp-readme.html

Anyways, in pure DOS, UPXing speeds everything up x 2 (at least on my
old P166 w/ FAT16), but on XP or Vista the result seems to be worse
(NTVDM's fault?). Honestly, we need more people to test this and
report back. So far, all I can say for sure is that your mileage may
vary: LZMA is slower than NRV at unpacking but much better
compression. 32-bit COFF .EXEs from DJGPP are usually compressed with
LZMA even without --lzma (e.g. --brute or --ultra-brute but not --
best). Andris says he's been using --brute on his compiles.

If anyone wants to test the compilation time, they can use REDIR or
FreeDOS' Runtime. Actually, I tested with Jack Ellis' UIDE cache and
his CC (clear cache) util. And if you want to test real DOS, try my
FreeDOS image(s). But I don't expect most here worry about this kinda
stuff too much.   :-/

http://www.coli.uni-saarland.de/~eric/stuff/soft/specials/runtime.zip
http://johnson.tmfc.net/dos/drivers.html
http://rugxulo.googlepages.com

- Raw text -