Message-ID: <37E79B92.70EA1100@pmail.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:52:02 +0200
From: Fred Backman <fredrick DOT backman AT pmail DOT net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: optimizing vs packing .EXE (Re: e: Why the executables r so big 
 ????)
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 990921152606 DOT 19568S-100000 AT is>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

I never said it doesn't compress the code. When I said "pack" I mean
compression, e.g. Huffman or whatever method they use. What I meant with "no
more than a packing tool" was that UPX to my knowledge does not do anything else
apart from compression, whilst it could do code optimization.  Sorry I was being
confusing :-)

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, Fred Backman wrote:
>
> > I agree as far as packing an .EXE goes. I don't know how UPX works,
> > but I have a feeling it is no more than a packing tool, e.g. it does
> > not modify any code but "only" removes redundant information and
> > packs everything else.
>
> No, it also compresses the code (and uncompresses it at run time).