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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 Precedence: bulk On Oct 31, 8:32 pm, RayeR 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