[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: LuaJIT without the JIT?
- From: steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@...>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:29:44 +0200
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:16 AM, HyperHacker <email@example.com> wrote:
> the resulting module is dependent on the FFI module you use. What I'm
> interested in is the possibility of writing binding modules in Lua,
> then compiling them into shared object files as native code, thus
> eliminating the runtime dependency on any FFI library.
Well, Mike P says that Lua modules can be compiled at some point, as
bytecode shared libraries.
But clearly you seek a portable option, and it's hard to see how that
could emerge with implementation-dependent bytecode.
Is it an important problem? People interested in serious performance
use LuaJIT, and it isn't hard to write portable C extensions. There is
still interesting scope for next-generation C binding generators,
which would take a LuaJIT FFI spec and make up some C.