Compiling
in [TCL]
|
From: drscrypt on 1 Mar 2010 10:07 Does anyone know how the compiler works? I believe a proc gets compiled after its first use automatically. Is there a way to get its compiled representation as a string without necessarily running the proc first? I wonder if I just compiled the contents of a text widget one complete statement at a time and saved their compiler versions to a file, would it be usable by tbcloader? DrS
From: Alexandre Ferrieux on 1 Mar 2010 10:41 On Mar 1, 4:07 pm, drscr...(a)gmail.com wrote: > Does anyone know how the compiler works? > > I believe a proc gets compiled after its first use automatically. Is > there a way to get its compiled representation as a string without > necessarily running the proc first? See ::tcl::unsupported::disassemble > I wonder if I just compiled the > contents of a text widget one complete statement at a time and saved > their compiler versions to a file, would it be usable by tbcloader? The above [disassemble] is a (sharp) debugging tool, it doesn't produce a tbc-compatible stream. If you want the compiler itself for direct bytecode loading, use the one from ActiveState. -Alex
From: drscrypt on 1 Mar 2010 13:24 Alexandre Ferrieux wrote: > See ::tcl::unsupported::disassemble Thanks, I will check it out. > If you want the compiler itself for direct bytecode loading, use the > one from ActiveState. > I'd thought about this, but it is really an overkill. Unless I am wrong, it introduces licensing restrictions, I cannot redistribute it, etc. The compiling is for a limited text editor tool and it is really not worth all this hassle and extra cost of licensing the AS's compiler. I thought there must be an easy way to compile scripts since it happens by default. DrS
From: miguel sofer on 1 Mar 2010 14:21 drscrypt(a)gmail.com wrote: > I thought there must be an easy way to compile scripts since it happens > by default. But ... compiling to bytecodes will not buy you much. If you are after performance: precompiled scripts take longer to load than the original takes to compile, so it will actually be a perf loss. OTOH, if you are trying to hide your sources, the standard compiler will not do - it keeps a copy of the source. The tool from AS does hide the source, thatś what itś designed to do. The OS version is there, but unmaintained and unlikely to work without quite some effort.
From: drscrypt on 1 Mar 2010 14:36
miguel sofer wrote: > drscrypt(a)gmail.com wrote: >> I thought there must be an easy way to compile scripts since it >> happens by default. > > But ... compiling to bytecodes will not buy you much. > > If you are after performance: precompiled scripts take longer to load > than the original takes to compile, so it will actually be a perf loss. > > OTOH, if you are trying to hide your sources, the standard compiler will > not do - it keeps a copy of the source. When I distribute a script and the end users receive it, I want to discourage them from editing it. Plain ascii just challenges the users to open and hack things. So, I can give them just the compiled script without any concern. (Not as app's either because these are small scripts, there are many of them and by themselves alone they do nothing.) So, it is not possible to compile scripts and splice them together? DrS |