Open
Description
If you want to play with LZ4_8088, the first step would be compressing executables with it, and see how small they get. Using Exomizer, we're seeing about a ~28-33% decrease in size.
Out of curiosity, I checked a few compressors: Exomizer (as used by ELKS), LZ4 (as suggested by Vutshi), and ZX0 (my personal go-to on retro platforms, but using the salvador compression tool):
-rw-r--r-- 1 asie asie 31482 Apr 21 19:37 ash.exo
-rwxr-xr-x 1 asie asie 37565 Apr 21 19:21 ash.lz4
-rw-r--r-- 1 asie asie 31367 Apr 21 19:38 ash.zx0
-rwxr-xr-x 1 asie asie 4755 Apr 21 19:49 login.exo
-rwxr-xr-x 1 asie asie 5620 Apr 21 19:21 login.lz4
-rw-r--r-- 1 asie asie 4655 Apr 21 19:50 login.zx0
ZX0 turns out to be an interesting alternative choice:
- it presents compression ratios similar to or narrowly beating Exomizer...
- however, it requires a different (per-file) "gap" between compressed and decompressed data. For example,
loginrequires 35 bytes reserved, whileashrequires 3 bytes reserved. What this means is that, for example, the amount of memory reserved for in-place decompression ofloginhas to be 35 bytes larger than the size of the uncompressedloginbinary; - however, it may also provide faster decompression speeds, owing to an optimized native 8088/8086 decompressor existing in under 100 bytes!
As such, I think it deserves further evaluation.
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
No labels