On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Matthew Mondor <mm_li...@pulsar-zone.net> wrote: > On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 19:45:41 -0600 > Samuel Greear <l...@evilcode.net> wrote: > >> I didn't like the fact that the only option for loading a script into >> the kernel was to load the script source. I would make loading >> pre-compiled scripts the preferential method. In fact, I would >> probably tear eval out of the kernel lua implementation and only >> support loading of precompiled byte-code into the kernel. > > If the tokenizer is considered heavy, or a potential source of exploit, > or if scripts are expected to frequently be loaded and a peformance > bottleneck exists, I also think that loading pre-tokenized bytecode > would be a good idea.
No, it is not heavy (see [1]). > However, there are several things to consider: some systems (i.e. Java) > do important sanity checks at tokenization time. Is this important for > Lua? Yes, it does important verification in the lexer/parser. > Secondly, is the Lua bytecode using a stable, well defined instruction > set which is unlikely to change? Otherwise as it improves and gets > updated any pre-tokenized scripts might need to be regenerated. Of > course, that's probably not an issue if everything is part of the base > system and always get rebuilt together. Yes, Lua bytecode is stable and uses a well-defined instruction set, but Lua doesn't perform bytecode verification (see [2]). > Thanks, > -- > Matt > [1] http://marc.info/?l=lua-l&m=128676702329567&w=2 [2] http://marc.info/?l=lua-l&m=128676669829325&w=2 Cheers, -- Lourival Vieira Neto
