Message-ID:	<3DA96BA4.9C2DC642@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sun, 13 Oct 2002 08:48:36 -0400
From:	CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
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>
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.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>  USE worldnet address!

- Raw text -