Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.perl
Subject: Re: can we ever compile perl?
Message-ID: <73343259@bfmny0.BFM.COM>
Date: 14 Dec 90 08:59:01 GMT
References: <1990Dec13.034336.21769@usenet@scion.CS.ORST.EDU> <93725765@bfmny0.BFM.COM> <15591:Dec1323:30:2490@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff)
Lines: 21

In article <15591:Dec1323:30:2490@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>In article <93725765@bfmny0.BFM.COM> tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes:
>>  2. For many of us, it would be enough to be able to make fast-loadable
>>     "Perl object files," i.e., write all data structures to disk after
>>     compilation & before execution.
>
>Supposedly perl -u does that, but it doesn't work on many systems. 

Perl -u is supposed to undump your core image to create a SELF CONTAINED,
executable program.  Where this does work, the result is HUGE, bigger
than Perl itself (by definition).  What I want is to store JUST the
compiled script data, suitable for immediate interpretation by the
regular Perl program.  The results should be quite small, and you save
the parsing pass later on.

I think 'checkpointing' would be a good way to go if the results stored
compactly... haven't seen Dan's invention yet, maybe that qualifies.

-- 
"We plan absentee ownership.  I'll stick to       `o'   Tom Neff
 building ships." -- George Steinbrenner, 1973    o"o   tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM