[0x01]

That's a neat trick! Is there any reason you can't do this with luac? I tried the equivalent to what you're doing with luac, but gcc complains that "member libmylib.a(luafunc.o) in archive is not an object".

What's the difference between the bytecode generated by luajit compared to luac?

[camperman]

Luajit detects the kind of output file passed to the -b option, in this case .o, and writes the data accordingly. It's actually writing compiled architecture-specific object code here which can be linked into a static library. You can also pass it a .c or a .h extension to get c source or headers.

I think luac compiles to bytecode only.

[0x01]

Ah, this explains why running a file on the .o file said it was lua bytecode. This feature of luajit makes it much more appealing. Thanks for the info!