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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,949c9834a004313a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Debug Code Date: 1996/03/25 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 144210357 references: organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-03-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Sundog said "Which seems like a pain to convert each of these into procedure's and rely on code-trimming to remove the unused debug code. (On my non-RR projects the conditional is normally not a function call so I can RELY ON CODE-TRIMMING along with a per module trace variable that requires editing to change). I would think that Pragma Debug would be painfull for GNAT since I am not aware of a code trimming option or unused data optimization." Whether or not you get removal of unused subprograms right now with GNAT is an OS issue, not a GNAT issue. For example, in AIX it comes for free. That's a pity, but is part of the price to pay for following system standards closely (note that C does not get code trimming either in most Unix environments). It's less of a concern than it used to be in the days of 640K memories :-) We do have a scheme for OS independnet removal of unused subprorams, but it is not going to appear in the next week or two! Pragma Debug cannot be particularly painful, sice it is an optional addition that you should not use if it causes you pain :-) It is of course perfectly reasonable to use some extrnal preprocessor to provide for full conditional compilation if that's what you really want (it's not something I would ever want to do, but there are those who do!)