www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
From: | Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT latnet DOT lv> |
To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, "Andrew Cottrell" <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au> |
Subject: | Re: CLIO 2.04 exe to use UPX in the next update |
Date: | Mon, 14 Oct 2002 09:22:30 +0300 |
User-Agent: | KMail/1.4.7 |
References: | <001201c27297$05d52c80$0a02a8c0 AT p4> |
In-Reply-To: | <001201c27297$05d52c80$0a02a8c0@p4> |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
Message-Id: | <200210140922.30663.pavenis@latnet.lv> |
X-MIME-Autoconverted: | from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g9E6Mhm01188 |
Reply-To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
On Sunday 13 October 2002 12:00, 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. There still seems to be one problem: UPX compressed DJGPP executables (built with last GCC versions) fails to run if uncompressed. For example I uploaded binaries of port of gcc-3.2 compressed with UPX. If one uncompress them, for example 'upx -d gcc.exe' , it no more runs. Bug report submitted (for UPX). The problem is present with latest version of UPX (1.23). I don't think it's so serious that I should reupload binaries already compressed with UPX, but maybe we should not make a new ones before this is fixed. Andris
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |