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

Anthony Ramine <>
Mon Nov 18 16:06:22 CET 2013


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.

-- 
Anthony Ramine

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
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> 
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions




More information about the erlang-questions mailing list