ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE. Software > Post New Requests Here

All AutoHotkey (AHK) coders read: No more upx packing of compiled ahk utils

<< < (7/8) > >>

That does sound weird.

Did you happen to try sending various things to virustotal?
-ewemoa (June 25, 2010, 09:37 PM)
--- End quote ---

Nope.  What I think it is, when I get the false positives in Malwarebytes and it's just the AutoIt or ahk program, I add it to the ignore list.  I probably forgot that I already added them on the Vista machine earlier. When I did a full scan on the Windows7 machine it found the files without UPX compression so it probably disregarded the ignore list since they were so much bigger.  At least that's my theory. :)

Does make you wonder what it finds that triggers it off though.

This issue caused me to look into some of the pros/cons of UPX compression.  I can't seem to find the links right now. But one of the issues mentioned was Windows system handling of compressed exes afa paging into memory etc..  The gist of it was, the only benefit was reduced download size, while the side-effects included Windows loading the entire exe into memory instead of paging in the code(which may not matter for small utilities.) But in any event it made me think I'm just as well off not to use compression.  These days most people can handle downloading 800KB as opposed to 600KB. Not a big issue.  Guess I could try a more thorough 7-zip or other zip program compression setting as a means to reduce the download bulk.

This issue caused me to look into some of the pros/cons of UPX compression.  I can't seem to find the links right now.-MilesAhead (August 29, 2010, 06:02 PM)
--- End quote ---

f0dder wrote a nice article about (some of) the reasons why exe compression is bad:

You can add the never ending problems with false positives to that.

For some reason I also thought zip compressors had an adjustment how thorough a compression to use.  At least the free ones seem to do it all about the same.  7-zip .7z format seems to compress a bit more, but I'd either have to change the download links or put a .7z file inside a .zip file.  To get 207KB download instead of 240KB it's not worth the effort or confusion.

There are adjustments to zip compression - it supports a few different algorithms, and the most common one (deflate) can have compression characteristics adjusted; not much point in going for less than maximum compression on today's hardware, though :). The .7z and .rar formats have fairly more decent algorithms, but they also have a huge advantage over .zip: solid compression, which matters a lot when your archive includes a lot of small files (typical for source code distribution).


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version