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=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,URI_HEX autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,89672537efe45443 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-27 08:15:18 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!212.97.175.23!not-for-mail From: Jano Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Source Analysis Tools for Ada95 Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 17:15:19 +0200 Message-ID: References: <7fc0d0f7.0304251607.efb4d7b@posting.google.com> <7fc0d0f7.0304261434.1f7f69fd@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.97.175.23 X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1051456516 9954974 212.97.175.23 (16 [49872]) X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:36646 Date: 2003-04-27T17:15:19+02:00 List-Id: Simon Wright dice... > tony@probepak.com (Dr. Anthony Probe) writes: > > > > Gnat includes "gnatelim" which generates a list of gnat specific > > > pragmas causing no object code to be built for dead code. You > > > should be able to use this as a starting point for deleting unused > > > code. > > > > Wouldn't a compiler only detect the obvious dead code (that which > > isn't used from just analyzing the comp unit? > > I have never used gnatelim, because the one time I tried it took a > long time (this was a few years ago) and I didn't really have a > problem anyway. But its intention is to find and mark those > subprograms (?and other constructs?) that aren't used in the > closure. Sounds like what you're after! My two experiences with gnatelim were a bit disappointing. I don't know if I did something wrong, but in both cases Gnat tried to remove subprograms who where actually being called. -- ------------------------- Jano 402450.at.cepsz.unizar.es -------------------------