From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Dec 19 10:03:14 1995 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id KAA25587 for questions-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 1995 10:03:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA25581 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 1995 10:03:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id KAA14801; Tue, 19 Dec 1995 10:58:09 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199512191758.KAA14801@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: undump program To: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 10:58:09 -0700 (MST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, nate@rocky.sri.MT.net, questions@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199512191748.KAA26848@rocky.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Dec 19, 95 10:48:30 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > > It will start up faster. It will not execute faster. It is the same > > core image... there is no difference between them at the point that > > the dump() takes place. That is the whole point, right? > > So, if the program takes 10 seconds to run as a 'perl + script', and it > takes 5 seconds if it's a 'dumped' program, does the dumped program run > faster? Does your machine detect that it's an undumped program and initiate "turbo mode" automatically? If not, the answer is "no", it doesn't run faster. It *loads* faster. The *wall time* is shorter. It *runs* the same speed. For perl programs, loading is typically an insignificant part of the total run time. > Geeze Terry, even after people give you actual *facts* which point out > that you're wrong you'll continue to argue the point using useless > semantics. And Forth programs run faster than assembly language... pull the other one. > I refuse to continue this useless conversation in public. I've already > proven you wrong, yet you'll continue to argue the point until you can > be right about *something*. How about this one: undump is an utterly bogus way of solving a problem that someone is too lazy to solve another way. I have no problem with selective laziness. I *do* have a problem with people rationalizing their laziness with bogus semantic arguments that what they are doing is "not really what they are doing because..." In any case, you will have to wait 12 days to pick up this argument where you left off, since I am going to be vacationing. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.