Christopher Faylor wrote: > There has been very little actual data provided here
Here is some data, using the program from http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-06/msg00321.html I remade the executables in an old version of inetutils. The numbers below show that only the larger ones are sparse (so the relative overhead is small) and that stripping them removes sparseness. Pierre /usr/src/inetutils-1.3.2-21: for file in */*.exe; do ls -l $file; /a.exe $file; done -rwxrwxrwx 1 p-humble sw 198284 Jun 5 15:23 ftp/ftp.exe* Sparse bit 200 -rwxrwxrwx 1 p-humble sw 508186 Jun 5 15:42 ftpd/ftpd.exe* Sparse bit 200 -rwxrwxrwx 1 p-humble sw 765064 Jun 5 15:45 inetd/inetd.exe* Sparse bit 200 -rwxrwxrwx 1 p-humble sw 76703 Jun 5 15:24 rcp/rcp.exe* Sparse bit 0 -rwxrwxrwx 1 p-humble sw 406162 Jun 5 15:45 rexecd/rexecd.exe* Sparse bit 200 -rwxrwxrwx 1 p-humble sw 71934 Jun 5 15:24 rlogin/rlogin.exe* Sparse bit 0 -rwxrwxrwx 1 p-humble sw 85888 Jun 5 15:23 rlogind/rlogind.exe* Sparse bit 0 -rwxrwxrwx 1 p-humble sw 63796 Jun 5 15:23 rsh/rsh.exe* Sparse bit 0 -rwxrwxrwx 1 p-humble sw 74703 Jun 5 15:23 rshd/rshd.exe* Sparse bit 0 -rwxrwxrwx 1 p-humble sw 43306 Jun 5 15:24 syslog/syslog.exe* Sparse bit 0 -rwxrwxrwx 1 p-humble sw 231526 Jun 5 15:23 telnet/telnet.exe* Sparse bit 200 -rwxrwxrwx 1 p-humble sw 158706 Jun 5 15:23 telnetd/telnetd.exe* Sparse bit 200 -rwxrwxrwx 1 p-humble sw 78942 Jun 5 15:24 tftp/tftp.exe* Sparse bit 0 -rwxrwxrwx 1 p-humble sw 69378 Jun 5 15:23 tftpd/tftpd.exe* Sparse bit 0 -rwxrwxrwx 1 p-humble sw 59463 Jun 5 15:23 uucpd/uucpd.exe* Sparse bit 0 /usr/src/inetutils-1.3.2-21: strip rexecd/rexecd.exe /usr/src/inetutils-1.3.2-21: /a.exe rexecd/rexecd.exe Sparse bit 0 -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
