Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 10:51:15 -0700
From: Nate Williams <nate@rocky.sri.MT.net>
Message-Id: <199512191751.KAA26854@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
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