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

Tuncer Ayaz <>
Wed Dec 4 08:49:25 CET 2013


On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Anthony Ramine wrote:
> I am currently fixing bugs in the BEAM passes which do not expect
> already-optimized BEAM code, we might want to want for these before
> we start documenting the actual feature.

Here's a pull request:
https://github.com/erlang/otp/pull/154
http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-patches/2013-December/004438.html

> Le 18 nov. 2013 à 16:03, Tuncer Ayaz a écrit :
>
>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Tuncer Ayaz wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Tuncer Ayaz wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> ping
>>
>> ping



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list