Autoit Optimize

[WolfWorld]

No longer supported please use Eat Spaghetti instead, it better and faster with more function.

Here is my first version of Autoit Optimize.

It's like Obfuscator but instead of slowing it down. It's making your script run faster.

How does this works? Autoit is a Thrid-Level language which at least what I called.

It does not compile your code to Machine Code nor Byte alike code at any given time.

So it need to read your Variables and Functions over and over and over. The shorter the name the better.

So this is what this script does.

It also work on script that passes Obfuscator but it need work around I will explain later on.... Am going to sleep now. See ya!

Just wrote it so sleepy.

Here is the things I fixed before release(I think you should know)

Replacing error, if replace $i before $iLoveYou it will not replace $i

LoveYou again. This is fixed by using sort function (bigger first).

Support Object type in Autoit like $test.Process.Hello

Support functions renaming also. (You can't use #include with this

tool. You will have to put all of the conntent in one file, or use

Obfuscator to do it.)

Support more than 26 + 26*26 Variable by adding the thrid charactor.

So it becomes 26 + 26*26 + 26*26*26 Which is enough for Obfuscator.

Support Obfuscator also but need work around. Here is how.

Obfuse you code by youself and open.

Search for _()

You will see FOR below it.

and you will see a Variable below FOR copy that.

Optimize you script and open the newly optimized script.

Goto the exact same line. Replace that variable with the one that I

told you. And also replace the variable in the FileInstall with the

same one on your ClipBoard.

Now you can run it normally.

Autoit Optimize_Release.exe

Edited August 27, 2009 by athiwatc

[Zisly]

Has anyone tested this?

[trancexx]

Has anyone tested this?

You?

[Zisly]

You?

Nope, I don't dare to test it >_<

[trancexx]

Nope, I don't dare to test it >_<

That's pathetic, you know.

It works. Renames variables and functions to shorter, nothing more.

Bad thing is that includes $CmdLineRaw or $CmdLine and for example used constants from included scripts.

I find it to be redundant.

[Zisly]

That's pathetic, you know.

It works. Renames variables and functions to shorter, nothing more.

Bad thing is that includes $CmdLineRaw or $CmdLine and for example used constants from included scripts.

I find it to be redundant.

In which way is it pathetic?

I just don't like downloading things without being sure it's safe.

[Wus]

@Zisly

You ought to check out VirtualBox as it would allow you to run the executable in a safe environment. A bit of work to set up, but I bet you would find it endlessly useful.

@trancexx

Calling someone pathetic in such a cavalier manner is well (I hate to be cliche) but pathetic.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Wus

[trancexx]

@trancexx

Calling someone pathetic in such a cavalier manner is well (I hate to be cliche) but pathetic.

Interesting. How come?

[Wus]

Interesting. How come?

You insult someone without offering any aid whatsoever thus showing that your motives are not in fact benevolent, which I find pathetic since it means that you probably just threw the insult in there for an ego-trip.

Meh, maybe I am reading it all wrong -- I just felt that giving a little information would be more helpful than belittling someone.

Consider this my EOF marker for this thread.

[trancexx]

You insult someone without offering any aid whatsoever thus showing that your motives are not in fact benevolent, which I find pathetic since it means that you probably just threw the insult in there for an ego-trip.

Meh, maybe I am reading it all wrong -- I just felt that giving a little information would be more helpful than belittling someone.

Consider this my EOF marker for this thread.

You did read my whole pathetic post?

Since you EOF-ed I suppose there is no point in me explaining to you why I find Zisly's reaction pathetic.

[WolfWorld]

That's pathetic, you know.

It works. Renames variables and functions to shorter, nothing more.

Bad thing is that includes $CmdLineRaw or $CmdLine and for example used constants from included scripts.

I find it to be redundant.

Don't worry i will update it soon.

The script now can't read into the #include (yet).

And if you can tell me all the Autoit Variables (Like $CmdLine) I will update it.

AND NO I Don't program viruses! Nobody ever trust me >_<

And Why is it that every topic I open there is going to be a fight or something similar!

Edited August 12, 2009 by athiwatc

[Szhlopp]

Don't worry i will update it soon.

The script now can't read into the #include (yet).

And if you can tell me all the Autoit Variables (Like $CmdLine) I will update it.

AND NO I Don't program viruses! Nobody ever trust me

And Why is it that every topic I open there is going to be a fight or something similar!

Looks cool. I don't have time to fully test it right now, but great job!

And I don't know why people have to fight over everything. I would ask a mod to remove all the useless random posts knocking eachother. It's rediculous, childish and all around stupid >_<

[WolfWorld]

Looks cool. I don't have time to fully test it right now, but great job!

And I don't know why people have to fight over everything. I would ask a mod to remove all the useless random posts knocking eachother. It's rediculous, childish and all around stupid >_<

Thanks I will update it soon with more optimize support.

[Jos]

Serious question: How much will a shorter variable name speed up the process? In other words: did anybody do speed tests and is able to share the script and the results?

It is for me trivial to change Obfuscator to support the creation of short variable names in stead of the "hard-to-read" variable names.

Jos

[Melba23]

Jos,

Out of interest I just ran this very short and pretty unrepresentative test:

$sShort = 0
$sVeryMuchLongerVariable = 0

$nBegin = TimerInit()
For $i = 1 To 10000000
    $sShort = 1
Next
ConsoleWrite(TimerDiff($nBegin) & @CRLF)

$nBegin = TimerInit()
For $i = 1 To 10000000
    $sVeryMuchLongerVariable = 1
Next
ConsoleWrite(TimerDiff($nBegin) & @CRLF)

The results if I run with the short variable name first:

Short:  3761  3861  3801  3792
Long:   3979  3934  3987  3936

and then with the long variable name first (always a good idea to reverse the order in any experiment*):

Short:  3760  3789  3844  3759
Long:   3968  4016  4031  4016

Seems pretty clear that the shorter name is faster in this test by about 5% - which I find very surprising. >_<

M23

* See RV Jones' book - Most Secret War

[Zisly]

So naming your variable $1,$2 would be the best way?

[Skrip]

Jos,

Out of interest I just ran this very short and pretty unrepresentative test:

$sShort = 0
$sVeryMuchLongerVariable = 0

$nBegin = TimerInit()
For $i = 1 To 10000000
    $sShort = 1
Next
ConsoleWrite(TimerDiff($nBegin) & @CRLF)

$nBegin = TimerInit()
For $i = 1 To 10000000
    $sVeryMuchLongerVariable = 1
Next
ConsoleWrite(TimerDiff($nBegin) & @CRLF)

The results if I run with the short variable name first:

Short:  3761  3861  3801  3792
Long:   3979  3934  3987  3936

and then with the long variable name first (always a good idea to reverse the order in any experiment*):

Short:  3760  3789  3844  3759
Long:   3968  4016  4031  4016

Seems pretty clear that the shorter name is faster in this test by about 5% - which I find very surprising. >_<

M23

* See RV Jones' book - Most Secret War

$s = 0
$sVeryMuchLongerVariableeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee = 0

$nBegin = TimerInit()
For $i = 1 To 10000000
    $s = 1
Next
ConsoleWrite(TimerDiff($nBegin) & @CRLF)

$nBegin = TimerInit()
For $i = 1 To 10000000
    $sVeryMuchLongerVariableeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee = 1
Next
ConsoleWrite(TimerDiff($nBegin) & @CRLF)

3032.95090577154

3517.51395777955

Huh....wow. Big difference. Edited August 15, 2009 by Firestorm

[nfaustin]

I got Error when run and compiling my script:

;From Original code
Global $input1 = GUICtrlCreateEdit("", 5, 165, 450, 155, BitOR($ES_AUTOVSCROLL, $WS_VSCROLL, $ES_MULTILINE, $ES_WANTRETURN))

;To Optimize code
Global $BE = GUICtrlCreateEdit("", 5, 165, 450, 155, BitOR($BY, $J, $BX, $BW))

And this are the Errors:

E:\Tool_Optimize.au3(58,63) : WARNING: $BY: possibly used before declaration.
Global $BE = GUICtrlCreateEdit("", 5, 165, 450, 155, BitOR($BY,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^
E:\Tool_Optimize.au3(58,67) : WARNING: $J: possibly used before declaration.
Global $BE = GUICtrlCreateEdit("", 5, 165, 450, 155, BitOR($BY, $J,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^
E:\Tool_Optimize.au3(58,72) : WARNING: $BX: possibly used before declaration.
 Global $BE = GUICtrlCreateEdit("", 5, 165, 450, 155, BitOR($BY, $J, $BX, 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^  
E:\Tool_Optimize.au3(58,77) : WARNING: $BW: possibly used before declaration.  
Global $BE = GUICtrlCreateEdit("", 5, 165, 450, 155, BitOR($BY, $J, $BX, $BW) 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^ 
E:\Tool_Optimize.au3(58,63) : ERROR: $BY: undeclared global variable. 
Global $BE = GUICtrlCreateEdit("", 5, 165, 450, 155, BitOR($BY, 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^

Edit:

Any ideas?

Edited August 27, 2009 by nfaustin

[Xenobiologist]

Hi,

isn't that a case of - works as designed? It is normal that the interpreter needs to read the variable every time. Therefor the longer the variable the more time it takes. It reads line by line, or is there any kind of optimzing processes done on compile time? I think there is nothing, cause if you decompile the code, it looks the same as before.

Mega

[Zedna]

Quote

3032.95090577154

3517.51395777955

Huh....wow. Big difference.

Very surprising! That's 16% difference!!

If that's true then Obfuscator should have new option for this optimization.