Message-ID:	<3DAA98A3.5D817727@yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 14 Oct 2002 06:12:51 -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> <200210140922 DOT 30663 DOT pavenis AT latnet DOT lv>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Andris Pavenis wrote:
> 
> 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.
> >
... snip ...
> 
> 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.

Which shows that the problem I posed, of not being able to confirm
a build with binary compares of the end product, already exists. 
I think such compression should be left up to the end user.  It
does not affect the zipped binary package size.

-- 
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 -