On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 06:42:21PM +0200, Henrik Grubbström wrote:
> Non-portable bytecode is much less robust, since it contains addresses of
> functions and constants in the pike runtime. It will thus run into
> problems as soon as the runtime gets even a minor change.
ah, that would mean even updates on the same system could run you into
trouble if just one old bytecode file happens to still be around...
is it worth any effort to fix that by eg adding checksum of the binary
at the start of each bytecode file and have pike ignore it if the
checksum does not match?
> >like does it include generated machine-code?
> Non-portable bytecode dumps the generated machine-code as is.
>
> >does it run faster? (i doubt it)
> Execution times are the same, since the same code is executed in the end.
so if portable bytecode does not include machine-code wouldn't there be
some penalty for the extra compilation needed?
> >sure, it's portable, but who takes advantage of that feature?
> Well, Roxen does...
how, can you share some details or anecdotes?
greetings, martin.
--
cooperative communication with sTeam - caudium, pike, roxen and unix
offering: programming, training and administration - anywhere in the world
--
pike programmer working in china community.gotpike.org
foresight developer foresightlinux.org open-steam.org
unix sysadmin iaeste.(tuwien.ac|or).at caudium.org
Martin Bähr http://www.iaeste.or.at/~mbaehr/ is.schon.org
|