Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 10:51:15 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@rocky.sri.MT.net> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams), questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: undump program Message-ID: <199512191751.KAA26854@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <199512191738.KAA14704@phaeton.artisoft.com> References: <199512190401.VAA25491@rocky.sri.MT.net> <199512191738.KAA14704@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Umm, once the syntax checking and optimizer is done, you can't optimize > > it more. Even with the implicit smiley it makes abosultely no sense. > > Does that mean we should take the intermediate pass in gcc and re-run > > the results back through the optimizer 10 times to see if they run > > faster? > > No, it means that your statement is tantamount to the claims of a 50% > size reduction for *any* file using a recoverable compression algorithm. I made no such claims. I said the dumped version was faster than the un-dumped version. I stand behind that claim. I live in the real world and work with 'real' tools, not something which should exist but doesn't. We don't have check-pointing, nor was that even an issue until you brought it up. The request was for an 'undump' program so an individual could dump a perl binary and ship it. He didn't want a discussion on the relative merits of bload/bsave, checkpointing, or how useless it is. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199512191751.KAA26854>