| |
Bitbreaker
Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 504 |
Doynamite 1.x
Hi Folx,
after doynamite was used in some recent productions and people often stumbled over the .prg/.bin pitfall i decided to make some improvements to the packer, it can now spit out a sfx, level-packed data including a valid load-address and depack-address, as well as forward literals to keep the safety margin low. Raw data can still be loaded and output without any bytes added. Also the optimal bitlengths can be iterated now and the optimal table be glued to the output file.
I also happend to make a leaner version that lets the files get slightly bigger, but shrinks the depacker to $e0 bytes and makes depacking 5-10% faster. This might be of good use for demo systems where size matters a lot.
Any more things one could wish? |
|
... 31 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11352 |
acme and source only it is right now - which is perfect =) and friggin fast <3 |
| |
soci
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 479 |
Quote: that a very nice job you've done there. I'd only ask for a win exe, 64tass src depackers & a readme.txt :)
All of these were there, or did I look at the wrong release? |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11352 |
its not yet released :) |
| |
Burglar
Registered: Dec 2004
Posts: 1085 |
some benchmarks would be nice (in terms of pack ratio and depack time), especially compared to others. |
| |
Bitbreaker
Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 504 |
The .asm source is done in a format that is very easy to adopt to other assemblers i'd say, if people hurt themselves on that, it is not my fault :-) I'll not include any .exe as the source is plattform-independent (got to test that with those changes however) anyway.
I should do some extra documentation on the bunch of switches being added though.
As for benchmarks, i'll dig some numbers out on monday, Axis did a comparison with at least ByteBoozer on C13 (benchmark to load/depack the whole demo). I know that doynamite beats ByteBoozer in speed and pack ratio, but can't remember details. I'll tweak that benchmark to have also numbers at hand for the new features.
Are switches like $01-value sei/cli for the sfx still necessary in our nowadays world? And is it okay to destroy the zeropage to some extent with the depacker by placing code there? Never gained any experience on sfx-depackers yet. |
| |
WVL
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 896 |
@Enno :
I did just that for the original Doynamite packer. I copied this from my comments for LZWVL :
As you can see I was too lazy to measure how much time Pucrunch took to decrunch, but I'm betting it would be slower than Byteboozer any day ;)
Here's some more hard data :
filesizes
file bin rle lzwvl-f lzwvl-s bb pu doynax
1 11008 8020 4529 4151 3383 3410 3265
2 4973 4314 3532 3309 2648 2687 2512
3 3949 3498 2991 2617 2187 2226 2108
4 7016 6456 4242 4085 3681 3595 3617
5 34760 27647 25781 24895 21306 20887 20405
6 31605 12511 11283 10923 9194 8877 8904
7 20392 17295 12108 11285 9627 9460 9289
8 5713 5407 4179 3916 3251 3314 3132
9 8960 7986 6914 6896 5586 5651 5430
filesize in %
1 100% 73% 41% 38% 31% 31% 30%
2 100% 87% 71% 67% 53% 54% 51%
3 100% 89% 76% 66% 55% 56% 53%
4 100% 92% 60% 58% 52% 51% 52%
5 100% 80% 74% 72% 61% 60% 59%
6 100% 40% 36% 35% 29% 28% 28%
7 100% 85% 59% 55% 47% 46% 46%
8 100% 95% 73% 69% 57% 58% 55%
9 100% 89% 77% 77% 62% 63% 61%
#frames to depack
1 11 13 14 58 27
2 5 7 7 38 17
3 4 6 6 28 12
4 8 9 9 43 20
5 36 39 42 300 119
6 20 25 25 126 49
7 22 25 26 138 60
8 6 8 8 43 18
9 9 12 12 73 32 |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11352 |
you guys should spend more time coding demoparts than bothering about depack times, its friggin fast, what else do you need to know? =P |
| |
Bitbreaker
Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 504 |
Going by the numbers BB is faster than doynax? But going by the graph doynax is faster than BB? So what's correct now? :-) And can i have the testfiles so i have compareable results in future? :-) Thx.
Edit: ah, the table is missing the doynax row! :-) |
| |
Burglar
Registered: Dec 2004
Posts: 1085 |
and wvl's test is using a pretty old doynax version. so what does the current version look like? ;) |
| |
WVL
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 896 |
the last table is missing the pu column.(didnt waste time testing pu, since we all know it is slow depacking and byteboozer and doynax had better or equal compression on all the files anyway).
So for the last file (file 9), rle takes 9 frames to depack, lzwvl takes 9 (fast mode) or 12 (slow mode), byteboozer takes 73 and doynax took 32 frames.
Anyway, based on the old version : compression was always better than byteboozer and always faster to decompress than byteboozer.
-> when you need small files, go for doynamite or exomizer (but be prepared for really slow decrunch). You can forget about pu or byteboozer.
-> if you need faster depack than doynamite, then go for LZWVL in slow mode or fast mode. |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 - Next |
