.beam difference between builds and misc HiPE questions

[François-Denis Gonthier]

On 16 November 2005 17:57, Matthias Lang wrote:

Thank you for confirming I was right.  This means the way I currently package 
isn't wrong at all.

There should be an anouncement for the -2 version of the Erlang Debian 
packages soon, which will provided a HiPE enabled runtime. 

> Indeed, this is not the case.
>
> More generally, there should not be any `bad' interaction between HiPE &
> OTP.
>
> Even .beam files containing native code can be happily loaded in a non
> hipe-enabled Erlang/OTP system.  The .beam files are `fat' and contain
> both native & bytecode.  On the other hand, the native code is in general
> not tranferable -- even between systems of the same architecture.

> Among other things, there's a timestamp (compile-time) in the BEAM
> file. You can see the timestamp by evaluating
>
>   <whatever-your-module-is-called>:module_info().
>
> The files are interchangeable, as long as you don't change Erlang
> VM versions.
>
> (Actually, you can use beams made by the an older compiler in a newer
> VM for many useful combinations of VM and compiler, but you usually
> can't do the reverse.)
>
> Matthias
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20051116/695de85f/attachment.bin>