[erlang-questions] Feedback wanted: Remove compilation times from BEAM files in OTP 19?

[Joe Armstrong]

I said this in another thread but I'll repeat it here:

I think we need repeatable builds so that if we compile the same
module several timeswith the same macros and library versions we
should get
a bit identical beam file (so we can hash the beam content and use the hash
as the key in a version control system)

What I don't know is how we should interpret the statement "the same
module" - if I correct a typo in a comment is the result "the same
module"?
I would argue that it is is not. I think a hash (md5, sha1 etc) of the source
and all the macros etc should be added to the beam file. That way
we can do a post hoc analysis of the beam code and tie together exactly
which version of the source was used.

/Joe

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Björn Gustavsson <bjorn@REDACTED> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Richard Carlsson
> <carlsson.richard@REDACTED> wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> I think my only hesitation is where to put the core "module changed"
>> functionality if I'm to submit it as part of OTP: the code module? beam_lib?
>> somewhere else? Any opinions out there?
>>
>
> I think the code module is the best place.
>
> /Bjorn
>
> --
> Björn Gustavsson, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions