Re: Weird embedded literal number/compiler issue

[KHMan <keinhong@...>]

Tim Maxwell wrote:
> Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo wrote:
>
> > > > I started writing one such tool but never finished because it was too
> > > > complicated to cater for all needs.
> > >
> > > What needs did you see? It seems to me that number format conversion
> > > is the main issue.
> >
> > See this thead: http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2005-06/msg00019.html
>
> I'm considering writing a cross-compiler according to the requirements 
> outlined in http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2005-06/msg00048.html. It 
> wouldn't be a drop-in replacement for ldump.c, because it would need to 
> take an extra parameter for the cross-compilation info. Probably a 
> "lua_DumpFormat *"...
>
> http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2005-06/msg00083.html mentions that 
> ChunkSpy can do some chunk rewriting. In light of this, is there still 
> any use for a cross-compiler?

I think there might be, if only for someone to test 'the market' 
of developers for such an application.

ChunkSpy is not suitable to be a serious app; it's more of an 
educational or academic toy that is meant as a stepping stone to 
writing more useful programs. I banged it out on the keyboard in a 
haphazard manner and I can't provide support so it's presented 'as 
is'. ChunkSpy also uses some hairy number conversion routines that 
requires numbers to be doubles and which I don't fully trust.

A cross-compiler on the other hand can be a more focused and 
smaller program, which would make it easier to support or maintain 
or test or validate.

--
Cheers,
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia