[erlang-questions] compile: making asm and core official

Tuncer Ayaz tuncer.ayaz@REDACTED
Fri Aug 23 14:13:23 CEST 2013

Motivated by a discussion at https://github.com/rebar/rebar/issues/105
and Bjorn-Egil's suggestion, I'd like to ask for opinions on
officially supporting 'core' and 'asm' as compile:file/2 options.

(1) How likely are you to accept patches which would:

* Implement support for compile:file(File, [core]) same as
  compile:file(File, [asm]).

* Officially document 'core' and 'asm' as external names for
  'from_asm' and 'from_core'?

* Change the existing documentation for 'asm' to not discourage use of
  the option as much.

* Officially document that "erlc foo.core" and "erlc foo.S" have been
  wired to from_core and from_asm for ages?

(2) Document compile_core/3 and compile_asm/3

Alternatively, one could call compile:compile_asm/3 and
compile:compile_core/3, but they're internal functions meant to be
used only from erl_compile (used by erlc). This would actually be the
most backwards compatible solution if we don't want to require a
patched compile.beam.

So, what about alternatively or additionally documenting
compile_core/3 and compile_asm/3?

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list