From: "Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
To: <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: Fileutils 4.0 released
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 22:11:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIIEOFCDAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-reply-to: <9003-Mon04Jun2001213626+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> > How about adding a recommendation (to the FAQ, or the KB, or
> > wherever appropriate) that executables be compressed with UPX?
> 
> UPX has its own stub, and I'm not sure how well would it work.  What

Are you sure?  I just did

  C:\> upx foo.exe
    [Compressing... blah]
  C:\> stubify -g bar
  C:\> fc /b foo.exe bar.exe
    Comparing files foo.exe and bar.exe
    FC: foo.exe longer than bar.exe

So my guess is that the stubs are identical; this guess seems
strengthened by the fact that UPX has a --coff option that generates a
COFF files instead of an executable.