[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: Bytecode abuse in Lua 5.2 (-work4)
- From: Henk Boom <henk@...>
- Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 21:39:07 -0400
On 22 August 2010 09:09, Stuart P. Bentley <stuart@testtrack4.com> wrote:
> It'd probably be a good idea to make rejecting bytecode in load() an #ifdef,
> with a prominent note in the manual / README that it should be defined in
> essentially anything that runs editable scripts and/or doesn't have its own
> bytecode verification routine.
Maybe having load() reject bytecode and adding a debug.load() that
accepts it would communicate the right message.
henk
- References:
- Bytecode abuse in Lua 5.2 (-work4), Peter Cawley
- Re: Bytecode abuse in Lua 5.2 (-work4), Majic
- Re: Bytecode abuse in Lua 5.2 (-work4), Martin Guy
- Re: Bytecode abuse in Lua 5.2 (-work4), Joshua Jensen
- Re: Bytecode abuse in Lua 5.2 (-work4), Jonathan Castello
- Re: Bytecode abuse in Lua 5.2 (-work4), Joshua Jensen
- Re: Bytecode abuse in Lua 5.2 (-work4), Martin Guy
- Re: Bytecode abuse in Lua 5.2 (-work4), KHMan
- Re: Bytecode abuse in Lua 5.2 (-work4), HyperHacker
- Re: Bytecode abuse in Lua 5.2 (-work4), KHMan
- Re: Bytecode abuse in Lua 5.2 (-work4), Stuart P. Bentley