Re: future of bytecode verifier

[Dirk Feytons <dirk.feytons@...>]

On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
<lhf@tecgraf.puc-rio.br> wrote:
>> You are suggesting that lua_load is still there but is administratively
>> deprecated and new code is encouraged to use a new function, luaL_load
>> instead? So luaL_loadbuffer, luaL_loadfile and luaL_loadstring would all
>> require the extra "nobinary" flag as well?
>
> No, only those apps that accept arbitrary user code. Those would use luaL_load
> if they want to avoid running user code in binary. Existing apps that run
> binary code from known, safe sources, such as their installation directories,
> don't have to change anything. We expect those are the majority of the apps.
> But perhaps our perception of what apps are out there is wrong.

Somewhat related question: could an option be added to luaconf.h to
select whether loading precompiled scripts is supported (and if not,
the undump code is not compiled at all)?

-- 
Dirk