[erlang-questions] compile: making asm and core official
Fri Nov 22 23:56:45 CET 2013
On 2013-11-18 15:03:34 +0000, Tuncer Ayaz said:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Tuncer Ayaz <tuncer.ayaz@REDACTED> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Tuncer Ayaz <tuncer.ayaz@REDACTED> 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?
I find the choices of *.core and *.S unfortunate, since they are used
for core dumps and native assembler files on many unixoid systems.
I suggest changing these to *.crl and *.srl staying with the *.?rl
pattern. Especially before documenting it.
>>> (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