If I compile a regular .lua file with luac, can the result be ran without the Lua library or interpreter installed?
No. You can run it on a version of Lua that was built without the compiler, but you still need the Lua interpreter to execute the code.
Incidentally, the compiled Lua bytecode is also machine-specific; i.e. you can't compile on one architecture and then run that output on another architecture unless you understand the subtleties (endianness, sizes of types, etc.).
If your code doesn't use any dynamic load-based facility (that's loadstring, loadfile, require, etc.) you can strip Lua library to just a VM, because what compiler emits is code to be run on this virtual machine. This can easily cut Lua already small footprint to 1/3 fraction of original.
However, since this is NOT a native binary code for any currently existing architecture, you still CAN'T run it directly without assistance of VM.
Related
I'm using lua inside another (Windows) application that provides a lua scripting interface. Is there a way for me to know which lua executable is being used? I know the version, but I would like to know where is the lua.exe that is running.
Lua is an embedded scripting language; that is the design of the thing. Lua is designed and intended to be incorporated into other programs. Lua.exe is essentially just a tiny shim over the Lua runtime, Lua being incorporated into a small console application. This is useful for using Lua as a console scripting language, but Lua.exe is in no way required to use Lua.
Lua scripts are not expected to know or care about the environment in which they run, except for in exactly the ways that this environment provides for them to detect. Lua as a language therefore has no mechanism to detect anything about the nature of the environment. If an embedded Lua environment wants you to be able to query such things, it will provide a mechanism for you to do so.
I'm working with ESP8266 and I don't want to use Lua for the whole project, I just want to run a few snippets of Lua code, received from wifi/sd card. I'd need to start a Lua environment and run the scripts, which would then eventually call some native functions for low level tasks. In other words, I just want to use Lua as simple scripting language (as it's intended to be) to implement some dynamic behavior. Is it possible? Is there any build of lualib for arduino?
Thanks in advance!
You can simply embed Lua in a extlibs/ folder for example and link to it when compiling your program.
There is existing Lua binaries but building it yourself is easy and better (as it's multiplatform).
OK, I know both answers told me I can just embed the code into my project, however, I found out I need to make some small changes. I made an example working project available here and the following list of changes had to be made:
The flags LUA_32BITS and LUA_USE_LONGJMP (C exception handling) were enabled
The following libraries were excluded: io, os, package, coroutine
The following functions were removed from C API: luaL_fileresult, luaL_execresult, luaL_loadfile, luaL_loadfilex, luaL_dofile, luaB_loadfile, luaB_dofile
Lua output messages are redirected to the Serial interface, check tinylua.h, tinylua.cpp and lauxlib.h to change this behavior
Hope this helps!
The ESP8266 has up to 4MB of program storage. Theoretically you can get up to 16MB as the datasheet specifies.
As I remember, compiling an amalgamated version of Lua (all sources in one file), occupies less than 100kb.
So, you can compile the Lua library and use it as needed on esp8266, even using Arduino IDE.
But you will get NAKED Lua if you do so... No nifty libraries to control Wifi, serial, SD, ports... You would have to provide that in C, or use NodeMCU code as you need.
You can try LuaJIT and access C code directly from Lua, cutting out the need for writing libraries. I have no idea of how you would compile it to Esp8266, or if anyone have tried this before, but you can do it "for science" and tell us how it turned out.
I need to create a Lua binary for Windows that is fully portable, meaning that I can have it on a flash drive and it will work on any Windows computer (well, Windows 7 computer). I need at least a few additional libraries including Lua socket, a library that allows the proper storage (without rounding at all) and computation of large numbers (around 81 digits in total), and the rs232 library.
The problem is that I don't know how to compile them together into a binary, or if I can use some method to just use a plain Lua binary and use require to add the others. I've been researching this for a long time (a few weeks now) and haven't been able to find a solution. If anyone can help, it would be greatly appreciated.
If it makes the process any easier, I do have a Linux operating system I can use if necessary.
Answer: if you are using Windows, you can get the .dll files for each library and add them to your Lua directory. I now have a version of Lua with all of the libraries I wanted, plus a few more. Thank you everyone for your help.
Is there any VM for Erlang that allows you to do compilation on the fly instead of compiling before?
There is a possibility to compile from the shell, thanks Martin.
Now, from the Erlang shell (or some other module!):
1> compile:file("mymod.erl").
{ok,mymod}
2> mymod:myfun().
Hello Joe
Is there any pros or cons with doing this?
Will you still be able to hot swap code?
Is it the regular use-case to handle code?
What benefits does the compiler give you in the end then?
From the Erlang shell, you can compile a module on the fly using c("path/to/module.erl"). You can also access this functionality through the compile module, specifically the compile:file/{1,2} functions.
For example, suppose we have a file mymod.erl:
-module(mymod).
-export([myfun/0]).
myfun() -> io:format("Hello Joe~n").
Now, from the Erlang shell (or some other module!):
1> compile:file("mymod.erl").
{ok,mymod}
2> mymod:myfun().
Hello Joe
See Erldocs on the compile module for more information.
You can do a great deal with the Erlang compiler in runtime. For example, you can dynamically generate code for a module (use erl_syntax!) and then compile it without even writing it to a file using compile:forms/{1,2}.
(Insert standard speech on great power and great responsibility.)
Will you still be able to hot swap code?
Yes.
Is it the regular use-case to handle code?
No. Normally Erlang code is compiled ahead of time into BEAM bytecode. Depending on whether Erlang was started in embedded or interactive mode, the modules are either loaded on startup, or dynamically as they are referenced. If you are building a release, you basically have to compile ahead of time.
What benefits does the compiler give you in the end then?
Well, for one thing, we can build compact releases without unnecessary components like the compiler. Of course, we also get all the traditional benefits of ahead-of-time compilation, particularly that of not having to waste time compiling all the time.
To sum it up, unless you fully understand the implications and have a very good reason not to compile your code ahead of time, please follow the standard practices.
The Erlang VM can only run compiled code! If you want to interpret Erlang code then you need an interpreter. The module erl_eval implements an Erlang interpreter and is part of the standard Erlang/OTP distribution. It is used by the Erlang shell to interpret the expressions entered.
All code handling in the Erlang VM, whether compiling, loading or updating, is done at the module level so it is impossible to compile or load a just one function. The Erlang compiler is written in Erlang and always available and can compile to either a file or a binary which can be immediately loaded into the system. As #MartinTörnwall has pointed out compiling a module from the shell using c(module) is in essence compiling on the fly.
So there would be no problems in automatically compiling code on the fly when it is used, at the module level. It is just that the current system is not designed to work that way and by default when it tries to load a module it only looks for the pre-compiled object file, the .beam file.
Erlang has an interpreter escript. Entire Erlang archive can be written in script. Almost all features are available.
By default, the script will be interpreted. You can force it to be compiled by including the -mode(compile). in the script.
Though it depends on the way you design your application, regular practice is to have .erl files which are compiled and run than having escript files.
So now you have many options.
Compile .erl file to .beam using c(my_module) this auto loads the .beam file. So the existing VM can run it on the fly. On in code you can use compile module functions like file, purge and load to load and run it on the fly.
Compile and keep the .erl files using erlc, erl -make, rebar, etc (Erlang has rich support) and then run it. You can build archives, boot scripts, rel etc to manage running and release of the Erlang software. This usually is the practice for production.
Use escript and run everything in interpreted mode.
Use escript and give -mode(compile) option to tell Erlang VM that at runtime (when starting to run escript) compile the code and run the compiled code (in memory)
Is there any pros or cons with doing this?
Compiled code is faster than interpreted code. I dont see any other right now in Erlang as pretty much everything is supported in both. Erlang even supports combination (Calling compiled code from interpreted code)
Will you still be able to hot swap code?
Yes in all cases. Your code also should be able to handle this.
Is it the regular use-case to handle code?
Option 2 for production. Option for 1 for learning / simple development. Option 3 and 4 in need basis for specific requirements (May be one time running).
What benefits does the compiler give you in the end then?
To make it clear, erlc program provides a common way to run all compilers in the Erlang system and compile module gives an interface to Erlang compilers. Compiler gives intermediate binary .beam file which helps in running Erlang code faster than interpreted counterpart. They also catch syntax errors (compilation errors).
How can I build and compile my own Lua files on Windows? And make them executable.
I am reading Beginning Lua programming, and I have Windows 7 and MacOS Lion both installed. I am having the hard time to follow the instructions. They do not work for me.
On MacOS I open the terminal and put these in:
export LUA_DIR=/usr/local/lib/lua/5.1
mkdir -p /usr/local/lib/lua/5.1 (it tells me, mkdir: illegal option) and I can not follow from here
SET LUA_DIR=”c:\program files\lua\5.1”
As for Windows I do this according to the book.
This what I see in my shell c:\Users\bd>
mkdir "c:\program files\utility" and it tells me access is denied
I have tried to right click on this folder and check off read only, but it does not work.
Any clues would be appreciated, this part has been really confusing for me.
To package your Lua files into an executable on Windows you have several options. There is srlua, there is wxLuaFreeze from wxLua (available as a binary for Windows), and there are more options in this SO answer.
Essentially, the main two options are: (1) append your Lua code to a precompiled exe file, such that it will be loaded and executed when that exe file is run, and (2) convert your Lua code into real executable by compiling it to bytecode, then to C, and then to your target platform.
As to your MacOS issue, mkdir -p means that mkdir is asked to create intermediate directories (for example, you asked to create /a/b/c, it will also create /a/b if those don't exist). As you don't say which version of MacOS you run, it's difficult to provide more detailed answer.
For now the standard distribution of Lua does not compile a script to native executable code; it execute your scripts by first compiling it to bytecode, then by interpreting the bytecode with a reasonnably fast static interpret (this also means that it is easily portable across native or virtual systems, and very resistant to attacks (that could be targetting bugs in the native compiler itself).
Also Lua still does not feature a runtime JIT compiler like Java and .Net: Lua still does not features a VM to produce a safe sandbox.
There exists Lua packages that convert your bytecode (or directly a source script) to a C source that can be used to convert a Lua library into native mode via the same C compiler used to compile the Lua engine itself (this is how the builtin libraries are produced, though they are slightly optimized manually in some time-critical parts).
However it is possible to compile Lua to a javascript source, and run it with fast performance using Javascript, because today's Javascript interprets do have good performance with their implemented VM featuring a JIT compiler for their own bytecodes.
It is also possible by converting it the Lua bytecode to a .Net or Java source that can then be executed directly from Lua (for that you need a version of Lua that has been ported to .Net or Java or Javascript, something that is not so complicate than developing in C/C++ directly a VM with a JIT compiler (a moderately complex part is the bytecode verifier, but the really complex part is the memory manager its garbage collector and its sandbox so that your Lua script will be fully isolated from the Lua engine itself for itw own memory, but the most complex part if the runtime optimizer and collection of profiling statistics: this has been done in the modern VMs for Java, .Net, Javascript, PHP/Zend, Python, Perl...).
I dont know which other language VM would offer the best performance to port Lua and implement on it a compiler to their own bytecode running at near native speed in their VM. But my own small experience with programs (in a much simpler language) self-generating a bytecode that they can run themselves, has always shown me Java winning in performance over .Net and Javascript. This is most probably because Java features an profiling-based dynamic code optimizer
(On the opposite the .Net optimizer runs only once during program installation, using some profiling data collected during the installation of the .Net VM itself, or at first instanciation of the script, without really knowing any profiling data collected during execution of the compiled program itself, and based on some cheked assumptions about the platform capabilities).
I also don't if would be faster in PHP, Python or Perl; the comparison with newer Javascript engines was never attempted though. Porting/compiling a Lua program to Javascript is relatively easy because it implements closures relatively easy for the resolution of linkages. Then the generated Javascript will compile to native code with the excellent Javascript's JIT compilers we have today (and never cease to improve in performance, so much that I've seen various appliactions running now faster in Javascript than before when they were written in C++ or plain C; as well the memory footprint has largely been reduced, we no longer have memory leaks, and even if there's a garbage collector, today's Javascript VM have a very efficient one, which is even better than the GC implemented in the native Lua).
But Lua remains useful as it is easy to secure and sandbox and offers various security benefits (but there are security issues in Lua as well for some kinds of applications, where Javascript offers some solutions, notably for side-channel attacks based on variation of time of execution; but these side-channel attacks are very hard to solve and can affect any system, any program, any programming language, and this starts becoming a critical issue because they are now more esily exploitable; the reason of that comes from hardware optimizations that we depend more and more today when we want to maximize the performances). And with Lua you may be more immune to these problems that a sandboxing sofware environment cannot solve alone.
Probably later we'll see a true VM implementation of Lua with a JIT and self-generating code and the possibility to instanciate new sandboxed VMs to run their self-generated code. It will take more time to generate an EXE file for distribution; notably because it generally requires adding also an installer and a distribution manager.
So for now we could imagine distributing Lua applications compiled to the bytecode of another JIT-capable VM: this generated bytecode would be faster than the Lua bytecode, and would then be extremely complex to reverse-engineer to the semantics of Lua because it would require two separate reverse engineering first from the bytecode of the other VM to the bytecode of Lua, both bytecodes loosing some easiy inferable rules and options tested and foll, and then again to sme Lua source
For the OSX terminal issue:
This command should work
export LUA_DIR=/usr/local/lib/lua/5.1
This command will probably give you permission problems:
mkdir -p /usr/local/lib/lua/5.1
You may try this to solve that. You will be prompted for your password:
sudo mkdir -p /usr/local/lib/lua/5.1
This command has nothing to do with OSX and will not work. This is a windows command:
SET LUA_DIR=”c:\program files\lua\5.1”
You have a permissions problem with Windows- try creating your cmd or PowerShell in Administrator mode. C:\Program Files is a protected directory that a regular user account doesn't have permission to write to.
As for the OS X issue, check out the mkdir OS X manual page to make sure you have the command correct.
So, if I understood your question correctly, you are trying to build Lua on Windows.
This is of course possible, but not easy for beginners. I would highly recommend you to use a binary distribution, which is much easier to install, unless you have special requirements.
Here are several Windows distributions :
Lua Binaries (Lua 5.1 and 5.2)
LuaForWindows (Lua 5.1)
LuaDist (Lua 5.2)