From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Dec 19 09:49:05 1995 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id JAA24839 for questions-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 1995 09:49:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (rocky.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA24833 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 1995 09:49:01 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA26854; Tue, 19 Dec 1995 10:51:15 -0700 Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 10:51:15 -0700 From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199512191751.KAA26854@rocky.sri.MT.net> To: Terry Lambert Cc: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams), questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: undump program In-Reply-To: <199512191738.KAA14704@phaeton.artisoft.com> References: <199512190401.VAA25491@rocky.sri.MT.net> <199512191738.KAA14704@phaeton.artisoft.com> Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > > 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