On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 04:42:27PM +0300, egor duda wrote: >Hi! > >Friday, 15 March, 2002 Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >RC> I vote for including UPX... and Lapo makes two. Do we need a third? And >RC> are there any objections? > >Does anybody ever tried to measure if upx impose any performance >penalties? If i understand things correctly, upx compress executable >file and attach a small "decompressor" stub to it. Then, when >executable starts, this stub decompresses original executable image. >This will totally defeat the features that most modern OSes have, >mapping pages from executable and loading them on demand, sharing >common read-only pages between different instances of one application, >etc. I really don't understand what's the point in saving disk storage >worth several cents (1byte == $1e-7), while increasing memory >footprint and reducing speed. Hey, just read upx docs, they contain >all these points already. > >Not that i'm against inclusion of upx to cygwin distro -- it's a >normal package like many others after all, but i really don't >understand why somebody would want to use such a program.
Excellent points. This is, IMO, an argument against using upx for all (any?) cygwin binaries. cgf
