[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Storing Lua code in a C library
- From: Rena <hyperhacker@...>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 00:54:29 -0600
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:51 AM, steve donovan
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Rena <email@example.com> wrote:
>> That's what I do now, but I wanted to remove the runtime dependency on
> You mean luac, the standalone program, or the internal Lua compiler?
> I don't think you would save more than 60K from the executable by
> leaving out the compiler. And the compiler is so fast that you would
> probably not notice the difference, unless it was a constrained
> platform like a games console.
>> A compile-time dependency shouldn't be a big deal, though it
>> might still be problematic if you're compiling for a different
> Well, that's why we have flexible build systems that build for any
> common platform. (Ideally, that is ;)) The Lua bytecode is then only
> one of the binary incompatibilities, and it's relatively minor (e.g
> Adobe Lightroom has a modified Lua 5.1 platform-independent bytecode
> steve d.
Sorry, I meant the internal compiler. I guess leaving it out of Lua is
not much gain in most situations, but that's the decision of whomever
is compiling their own Lua executables. I just like my programs to
have as few dependencies as possible.
Sent from my Game Boy.