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: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:55:33 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: RFP: UPX (Was Re: reducing binary distribution size with UPX)
Message-ID: <20020315165533.GC18094@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA760014BC8 AT itdomain003 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au> <2070817630 DOT 20020315164227 AT logos-m DOT ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2070817630.20020315164227@logos-m.ru>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 04:42:27PM +0300, egor duda wrote:
>Hi!
>
>Friday, 15 March, 2002 Robert Collins robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au wrote:
>
>RC> I vote for including UPX... and Lapo makes two. Do we need a third? And
>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 == $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.

Excellent points.  This is, IMO, an argument against using upx for
all (any?) cygwin binaries.

cgf