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

Tuncer Ayaz tuncer.ayaz@REDACTED
Mon Oct 21 20:06:23 CEST 2013

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?
> (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 mailing list