[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Precompile my Lua Library Code
- From: "Edward Mitchell" <emitchell@...>
- Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 13:45:28 -0400
You're right. I've only used Lua as an interpreter for .lua script files
that are started from my main C++ app. I want to build the .c file that
would contain the bytecode for my compiled lua library functions and then
include that in my VC project.
Your example assumes that I have an executable "lua.exe" available. I have
the 5.1 release. Am I right in assuming that it is the luac.c file that I
compile and link to build it - lua.exe? What's the difference between the
lua compiler and the lua interpreter and are they represented by different
files in the downloaded source.
"Mark Edgar" <email@example.com> wrote in message
> On 4/27/07, Edward Mitchell <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Looks like just what I need. I can compile srlua.exe and then give it
>> bin2c.lua file to chew on which itself will chew on my +MyLibs.lua file
>> produce an include with the characters for my library Lua code.
> If I understood your original question, you need a build tool which
> produces C files containing pre-compiled Lua chunks (scripts).
> Assuming you have the standard Lua interpreter available, you don't
> need srlua to run bin2c.lua at build time:
> lua bin2c.lua +mylibs.lua >mylibs.c
> Using srlua isn't necessarily wrong here; srlua is really useful for
> distributing or deploying Lua programs in situations where the
> standard interpreter isn't available or desired. If you're going to
> be using bin2c only at build time, it doesn't make sense to add srlua
> to your project when the Lua distribution already includes lua.exe.
> If, on the other hand, you want to distribute bin2c.exe with your
> system, then srlua is just what you want.