Re^2: Perl + binary

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Perl + binary by Corion (Patriarch) on Oct 30, 2013 at 19:34 UTC
The big advantage of Inline::C is in my opinion that it is relatively easy to move from an Inline::C implementation to a full XS implementation, mostly by copying the right files at the right stage. Inline::C basically automates building an XS file for you. This enables you to distribute the compiled file across machines that don't have a C compiler installed and shouldn't have the facility to compile C code. C::TinyCompiler (of course) provides the facility to compile C code on the fly. According to its documentation, C::TinyCompiler only works for x86 and ARM processors. Whether that includes x64, I don't know, but if you need to run your code on PPC or other architectures, the Inline::C approach will use the tools used to build Perl for the target architecture and thus is sure to be compatible with the architecture.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: Perl + binary
by Corion (Patriarch) on Oct 30, 2013 at 19:34 UTC

The big advantage of Inline::C is in my opinion that it is relatively easy to move from an Inline::C implementation to a full XS implementation, mostly by copying the right files at the right stage. Inline::C basically automates building an XS file for you.

This enables you to distribute the compiled file across machines that don't have a C compiler installed and shouldn't have the facility to compile C code. C::TinyCompiler (of course) provides the facility to compile C code on the fly.

According to its documentation, C::TinyCompiler only works for x86 and ARM processors. Whether that includes x64, I don't know, but if you need to run your code on PPC or other architectures, the Inline::C approach will use the tools used to build Perl for the target architecture and thus is sure to be compatible with the architecture.

[reply]