• Ilya Minkov <midiclub 8ung.at> Feb 23 2003
• "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Feb 23 2003
• Richard Grant <fractal clark.net> Feb 25 2003
• Richard Grant <fractal clark.net> Feb 25 2003
• Ilya Minkov <midiclub 8ung.at> Feb 26 2003
• "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Feb 26 2003

UPX Executable packer doesn't want to compress executables compiled and 
liked with digitalmars tools, with an error message:
"CantPackException: file is possibly packed/protected (try --force)"

Trying force yuilds following results:
- with stable 1.24 - a 100% broken executables. GPF at start.
- with alpha 1.90 - an execuble *seems* to work. But as the homepage 
says, it only *seems* so, since it has to be broken at some point. A 
matter of luck though.

What might be the reason of it? According to the authors, current UPX 
has following bugs and non-working features in Win32/PE
- writeable shared sections (`--force' *may* work)
- certificates in the image.

-i.

"Ilya Minkov" <midiclub 8ung.at> wrote in message
news:b3bdlm$10ll$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 UPX Executable packer doesn't want to compress executables compiled and
 liked with digitalmars tools, with an error message:
 "CantPackException: file is possibly packed/protected (try --force)"
 Trying force yuilds following results:
 - with stable 1.24 - a 100% broken executables. GPF at start.
 - with alpha 1.90 - an execuble *seems* to work. But as the homepage
 says, it only *seems* so, since it has to be broken at some point. A
 matter of luck though.


Is the source available to UPX? That would likely be the fastest way to see
why it is failing. Optlink produces standard PE exe files that work fine
from win32s to XP. I have no idea why UPX would fail on them.

 What might be the reason of it? According to the authors, current UPX
 has following bugs and non-working features in Win32/PE
 - writeable shared sections (`--force' *may* work)
 - certificates in the image.


Neither of those are present. You can see what's in it with the DUMPEXE
utility.

In article <b3bv3v$1f6q$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
"Ilya Minkov" <midiclub 8ung.at> wrote in message
news:b3bdlm$10ll$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 UPX Executable packer doesn't want to compress executables compiled and




..

Neither of those are present. You can see what's in it with the DUMPEXE
utility.


I've been using HeavenTools PE Explorer to fish around (graphical dumpexe), but
have not found anything amiss yet. PE Explorer has built in support for the UPX
plugin, and is failing in the .init section. I tried debug, optimized release,
non optimized release, and manual adjustments of the DM EXE PE header to look
more like a Microsoft PE header - I also tried various switches passed into UPX,
and no progress.

My thinking is that it might be difficult to get a debug release to work with
UPX, but cerrtainly a release version should have no problems.. but one thing
that seems odd (albeit theoretically benign) is the presence of a .debug section
in the release build of a DM exe.

Richard

I've been using HeavenTools PE Explorer to fish around (graphical dumpexe), 


Also, PE Explorer is showing that the .text and .rdata sections (_TEXT and
CRT$XIA in a DM exe) as type <OTHER>. With a Microsoft distributed exe, the
sections are identified as .text and .rdata.

Not really understanding the difference, I just changed the types - and created
an invalid exe.

Finally, delete of the .debug section and recalculate of the section size also
creates an invalid exe.

Any one else?

Richard

Sure.

http://upx.sourceforge.net/#download

I have tried a ton of other executable compressors. Some, like the one 
from Ian Luck work, most others don't, but i'm not sure these do at all. :)
I've collected the data *somewhere* and can't tell more right now... 
till i find where i have put it.

Anyway, there's no source to the others, not much to analyze...

Walter wrote:
 Is the source available to UPX? That would likely be the fastest way to see
 why it is failing. Optlink produces standard PE exe files that work fine
 from win32s to XP. I have no idea why UPX would fail on them.




PS. Thans a lot for the new D features. (like for everything)
I guess these are the ones that can give D even more advantage over the 
current popular imp+OO languages. OTOH high flight - long way to fall...

BTW, your compiler is not very huge. I don't see a single reason why a 
VM has to be larger. It can even only be a simple 300k compiler. :)

"Ilya Minkov" <midiclub 8ung.at> wrote in message
news:b3j726$1ia$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 BTW, your compiler is not very huge. I don't see a single reason why a
 VM has to be larger. It can even only be a simple 300k compiler. :)


The hugeness of the VM doesn't come from the compiler, but from the library.
With a native executable, you link in just the library code you need. With a
VM, you carry it *all* with you, whether it is used or not. The VM also has
to support every feature, not just what is used.