From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c35edbbda4c7f58f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!151.164.30.34!cyclone.swbell.net!bos-service1.raytheon.com!dfw-service2.ext.ray.com.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <41A28F3D.2030008@acm.org>
From: Arthur Schwarz <aschwarz@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Conditional compilation in Ada?
References: <cndgus$9g6$1@korweta.task.gda.pl>
 <opshlsuxttm0et4w@news.online.de>
 <419b5ff6$0$25329$9b4e6d93@newsread2.arcor-online.net>
 <cctkt7j26348.khe28jjtda9j$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <cnieq2$46g$2@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <pan.2004.11.20.01.05.29.885101@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
In-Reply-To: <pan.2004.11.20.01.05.29.885101@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:15:41 -0800
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.199.68.158
X-Complaints-To: news@ext.ray.com
X-Trace: dfw-service2.ext.ray.com 1101172542 192.199.68.158 (Mon,
 22 Nov 2004 19:15:42 CST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:15:42 CST
Organization: Raytheon Company
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6353
Date: 2004-11-22T17:15:41-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote:
>>pragma Ignore ( -- compiler warning 
>> DEBUG.put_line
>> (  "Here " & Is.Something ("reasonable complex to evaluate")
>> )
>>);
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm being stupid, but how does this help?
> Doesn't this always have no effect?
> 
> I'd like to switch debugging on/off without editing every
> DEBUG statement in the source...

Same problem. What I usually do is use a flexible scheme to represent 
debug flags. If I want the code permanantly removed, I set the debug 
flags to:

     Debug_Flag : constant Boolean := FALSE;

and if I want the conde permanently available, I set the debug flags to:

     Debug_Flag : constant Boolean := TRUE;

and if I want to (interactive) change my mind, I set the debug flags to:

     Debug_Flag : Boolean := TRUE;

The pragma inline (below) conserves code and enables identification of 
debug sections - it is for a maintainer's notification and does nothing 
in terms of code or code integrity. And I know, I know, 'pragma inline' 
is only a suggestion to the compiler - but a good one.

The Is_Debug functions are tailored to suit. I've given only a clear (?) 
and simple presentation of principle.

Forgive the Ada.

Hope this provides a focus for conversation. It would be nice to see 
what debug things are out their.

art


Package one body is

Debug_Flag  : Boolean := TRUE;  // Note: this is a variable
                                 // and placed in the spec file.

function Is_Debug return Boolean is
begin -- Is_Debug
    return Debug_Flag;
end Is_Debug;
pragma inline( Is_Debug );


end one;

Package two body is

Debug_Flag  : Boolean := TRUE; // same as above

function Is_Debug return boolean is
begin -- Is_Debug
    return Debug_Flag and one.Is_Debug;
end Is_Debug;


procedure Some_Thing is
begin -- Some_Thing
    if ( Is_Debug ) then
      null;
    end if;
end Some_Thing;
end two;