Re: LuaJIT without the JIT?

[steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@...>]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:16 AM, HyperHacker <hyperhacker@gmail.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.

steve d.