Re: future of bytecode verifier

[Dirk Feytons <dirk.feytons@...>]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Ralph Hempel
<rhempel@hempeldesigngroup.com> wrote:
> If you cannot guarantee that the verifier works in
> all cases, then I agree that having it gives a false sense
> of security.
>
> As I'm very interested in reducing the size of my firmware
> image, what function names are affected?

I'm interested as well.

Lhf, you mentioned the cost of the verifier; do you have any concrete numbers?

Could the current verifier be transformed to a lua_Reader example that
is distributed separately in ./etc (like all.c/min.c/noparser.c)?

-- 
Dirk