X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id
         :subject:from:to:content-type;
        bh=3hlfXVsB0jBc0ZPuA8+nCPT1NnjSar3mxc8ZaoLIDbw=;
        b=gDHhtkNF7rx3KuFpujsHi87uYMeby71kiH+d5lK3/rkAFQsw/+QLg+w1dhYna7I2AH
         ZG/gwpMDGxJgQJHjPFOTYIKq9K/QyIn8Tm2+8x4AwJ7np6T/j/Ri7lpotzsscDFFC7A9
         ddtDe2ycFNgA9B5pd1Jn3S2Ofx3F66dd6uq7cvT7K3Y+4HHarMsVJjuuEdiBLWzQzkvu
         m1rJdnolE/YDx3cSQLflHcUqufIQzlPJEXhGw4Xn4VqcRHSwY1pfaMQ7ehZq3d2xFl6a
         eoVX+vJRFE21YQHLXPGqKViEzgIGhj2BKSMzJAlO2UxIu3TogDoPoaPvfiCDUIZfk877
         gcaQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.147.2 with SMTP id tg2mr7373856obb.47.1363888444161;
 Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:54:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAA2C=vAVbJ_DzvT0Bc0irtnfnKehsisPqgR=WYs7wtEne+dghA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5140A042 DOT 9050805 AT iki DOT fi>
	<CAA2C=vB08rhgRyL-WX+vgXQKxkh4-bXxYZRG+8NyL1HzaUKafA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAA-ihx-wzMncQTikJZ2yFuSCzz4ebBUneNcm5iO4DygvL519aw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAA2C=vAk6h+ko+RRgnp-JXX68G1cJKxGxp=ACQCNcdZcBymgQw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAA-ihx_RNBVRbBiu0WYEfY6=AHMLX88aKwKJoeNOUto01uzczQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAA2C=vAVbJ_DzvT0Bc0irtnfnKehsisPqgR=WYs7wtEne+dghA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:54:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA-ihx-YOVY_9MH8wjFY-G5ydc-pbvJQRNEXifhAFOk3vOsx+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: About new DJGPP v2.04 beta
From: Rugxulo <rugxulo AT gmail DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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

Hi,

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
> On 3/21/13, Rugxulo <rugxulo AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
>>
>> UPX mostly offsets that size increase, believe it or not. And I've not
>
> Well, I am most certainly not interested in any lame bandaids,
> not at all

It's not a bandaid, it's very useful (though N.B. UPX'd DJGPP stuff
runs slower under WinXP), esp. for someone complaining about bloat,
heheh. LZMA compresses very well.   ;-)

(Thu Mar 21, 12:45 PM) /tmp/doydoy # unzip -Cj
/mnt/sda3/TEMP/gcc480_20130316b.zip *cc1.exe

(Thu Mar 21, 12:45 PM) /tmp/doydoy # upx --best --lzma --all-filters cc1.exe

 12498432 ->   4124072   33.00%   djgpp2/coff   cc1.exe

I've actually built a (very) few things with DXE3 and DJELF (Unzip or
Zlib, can't remember), and the difference was totally negated by the
fact that you can't use UPX on the output. So all you get it more
pieces, fragile and hard to keep together, yet lose compressibility. A
.DXE would be great if lots of programs use a library, but most don't.

Actually, I think the "best" solution is to try loading a .DXE and
fall back to static version built into the main .EXE if not found.
That's what I did for my paq8f hack (falls back to NOASM if the MMX or
SSE2 .DXEs aren't found). That way it always works, with or without
the .DXE. In theory, I thought it'd be better to swap in various
speedups for easier benchmarking (without billions of separate .EXEs),
but nobody ever wrote any (and I'm the last person to claim to
understand SSE4.2, ugh, even if I do have such a cpu nowadays).

>> It may not be latest tech, but it's still very well made and
>> highly useful.
>
> Most certainly yes, it is highly useful: I am not denying it and I doubt
> that anyone is/will be trying to do so.

Nobody here, no, but various others, yes ... sigh.   :-(