Re: preserving the relationship between upvalues of serialized functions in LuaJIT 2
- From: Zach Devito <zdevito@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: luajit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:02:14 -0700
Thanks for the feedback!
> [BTW: Why didn't you use the API names from Lua 5.2?]
I didn't realize they were added to Lua 5.2, no reason I can't use those names.
> But ... why is all of that necessary? Why serialize two functions
> that obviously had to have a common parent? Why not serialize the
> parent instead? That would avoid all of the logic.
I want to be able to handle cases where it is not clear what the
parent function was. For instance:
local makeobject()
local i
return { get = function() return i end,
set = function(a) i = a end }
end
local obj = makeobject()
serialize(obj) --uses upvalueid internally
Zach
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Mike Pall <mike-1206@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Zach Devito wrote:
>> Can anyone comment on whether this code should work in general, and on
>> any issues I might be missing?
>
> Well, it doesn't error out on non-positive upvalue indices. And,
> yes, it's really absolutely necessary that those functions haven't
> been run (esp. not JIT-compiled) -- which is hard to verify. Umm,
> and it might break on future changes that improve static upvalue
> analysis.
>
> [BTW: Why didn't you use the API names from Lua 5.2?]
>
> But ... why is all of that necessary? Why serialize two functions
> that obviously had to have a common parent? Why not serialize the
> parent instead? That would avoid all of the logic.
>
> --Mike
>
Other related posts:
