Message-ID: <3DA96BA4.9C2DC642@yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 08:48:36 -0400 From: CBFalconer Organization: Ched Research X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: CLIO 2.04 exe to use UPX in the next update References: <001201c27297$05d52c80$0a02a8c0 AT p4> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Andrew Cottrell wrote: > > Does anyone have any problems if I strip and upx all of the exes > when I do a re-build of the packages at clio. > > Please note that I compared using upx'd and standard exes to build > the binary zip files and they came out to be about the same so I > could not see any advantage when downloading the files, but when > unziped the exes are smaller so they take up allot less space on > the HDD. On general principles I would discourage it. I don't think the results can hold accessible debugging info, and the practice makes it harder to check that the build has been duplicated by a binary compare of the end product. This latter is why I object to any system that dumps uninitialized areas into binary files for any reason. I don't know if such a binary compare is feasible under the present system. I always like the warm fuzzy that accompanies KNOWING that one has a controlled starting point, including tools and libraries. It eliminates a lot of guessing when Murphy strikes. -- Chuck F (cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com) (cbfalconer AT worldnet DOT att DOT net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. USE worldnet address!