From: Stuart Henderson <stu@spacehopper.org>
Subject: Re: luajit, arm64, games/love/0.10
To: Thomas Frohwein <tfrohwein@fastmail.com>
Cc: ports <ports@openbsd.org>, Omar Polo <op@omarpolo.com>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 12:40:48 +0100

On 2024/05/10 10:00, Thomas Frohwein wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 09:44:42AM -0400, Thomas Frohwein wrote:
> > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 11:31:54AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > > +cc op@, sorry I missed the maintainer line in ../Makefile.inc
> > > [ original mail: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=171528886832093&w=2 ]
> > > 
> > > On 2024/05/09 20:06, Thomas Frohwein wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 10:09:39PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > [...]
> > > > 
> > > > > How useful is love/0.10, does it still make sense to keep it?
> > > > 
> > > > There are a couple of nice (commercial) games that run with love-0.10:
> > > > 
> > > > $ ls -1 0.10
> > > > blue-revolver
> > > > britebot
> > > > cityglitch
> > > > marvellous-inc
> > > > pocket-rumble
> > > > soulstice
> > > > spellrazor
> > > > 
> > > > From my side not a reason to keep aging version of luajit alive and I
> > > > would be ok with marking love/0.10 BROKEN to give a little time to see
> > > > if it can be patched up to work with the luajit update...
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > For the error I'm running into, it looks like it would be fixed by an
> > > update to newer luasocket, though the commit which updates it in the
> > > love2d tree is huge -
> > > https://github.com/love2d/love/commit/8885fc621dd01c3b8dfd1abf063785103d9daf15.patch
> > > - and doesn't directly apply to the version in 0.10.2 (and there's no
> > > 0.10 branch in their git repo so tracking down other needed commits is
> > > a bit awkward).
> > > 
> > > How much would it suck to disable the jit for this version as is
> > > already done for 0.8?
> > 
> > I've built it with your diff and ran a few that I could: orthorobot
> > from packages, as well as Britebot, Marvellous Inc., and Soulstice.
> > All run fine. This is on a high-end CPU (Intel Xeon W-11955M), so the
> > effect of not using the JIT may be more noticeable on lower end
> > hardware. But this is still all very niche, so I think disabling the
> > JIT is the right move. ok thfr@
> 
> Just realized the games that I couldn't run (Blue Revolver, Britebot,
> Spellrazor) still run with LuaJIT, so the diff breaks them. I still
> think it's the right move for now to disable the JIT for love-0.10 at
> this point.
> 
> Here the errors when running without JIT in case this means more to
> someone else:
> 
> Spellrazor:
> Error: Syntax error: main.lua:1: unexpected symbol near '#'
> stack traceback:
>         (tail call): ?
>         [C]: ?
>         [C]: in function 'require'
>         [string "boot.lua"]:429: in function <[string "boot.lua"]:275>
>         [C]: in function 'xpcall'
> 
> Blue Revolver (and similar with Cityglitch):
> Error: lib/bitser.lua:24: module 'ffi' not found:
>         no field package.preload['ffi']
>         no 'ffi' in LOVE game directories.
>         no file 'ffi.so' in LOVE paths.
>         no file './ffi.lua'
>         no file '/usr/local/share/lua/5.1/ffi.lua'
>         no file '/usr/local/share/lua/5.1/ffi/init.lua'
>         no file '/usr/local/lib/lua/5.1/ffi.lua'
>         no file '/usr/local/lib/lua/5.1/ffi/init.lua'
>         no file './ffi.so'
>         no file '/usr/local/lib/lua/5.1/ffi.so'
>         no file '/usr/local/lib/lua/5.1/loadall.so'

LuaJIT includes an FFI extension that isn't present in normal Lua.
However there's an external version which is fairly similar to LuaJIT's
which maybe worth trying: https://github.com/q66/cffi-lua