Redundant With Remover

Redundant With Remover

[spoons]

Does anybody know of a utility that can check for unneccessary with'd
packages? Obviously it would be harder to spot for packages that are also
use'd, but if the utility also looks at the with'd package to see if
anything is actually used, it could be done.

Thanks in advance.

Trying to clean up some old code,
JD

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet

Re: Redundant With Remover

[Mats Weber]

> Does anybody know of a utility that can check for unneccessary with'd
> packages? Obviously it would be harder to spot for packages that are also
> use'd, but if the utility also looks at the with'd package to see if
> anything is actually used, it could be done.

gnatf (part of the GNAT compiler) does that.

Re: Redundant With Remover

[Nick Roberts]

I was just going to say that a decent compiler ought to report that sort of
thing as a warning (no?).

-- 

== Nick Roberts ================================================
== Croydon, UK                       ===========================
==                                              ================
== Proprietor, ThoughtWing Software                   ==========
== Independent Software Development Consultant            ======
== Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com                              ====
== Voicemail & Fax +44 181-405 1124                          ===
==                                                            ==
==           I live not in myself, but I become               ==
===          Portion of that around me; and to me             ==
====         High mountains are a feeling, but the hum        ==
=======      Of human cities torture.
===========                             -- Byron [Childe Harold]


Mats Weber <Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch> wrote in article
<34D32B8E.F86335E1@elca-matrix.ch>...
> > Does anybody know of a utility that can check for unneccessary with'd
> > packages? Obviously it would be harder to spot for packages that are
also
> > use'd, but if the utility also looks at the with'd package to see if
> > anything is actually used, it could be done.
> 
> gnatf (part of the GNAT compiler) does that.

Re: Redundant With Remover

[Robert S. White]

In article <34D32B8E.F86335E1@elca-matrix.ch>, Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch 
says...
>
>> Does anybody know of a utility that can check for unneccessary with'd
>> packages? Obviously it would be harder to spot for packages that are also
>> use'd, but if the utility also looks at the with'd package to see if
>> anything is actually used, it could be done.
>
>gnatf (part of the GNAT compiler) does that.

  Rational APEX will also when you hit the "Show Unused" button.
_____________________________________________________________________
Robert S. White         -- An embedded systems software engineer
e-mail reply to reverse of ( add .'s ):  net mcleodusa shift2 r white

Re: Redundant With Remover

[wiljan]

Mats Weber <Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch> wrote in article
<34D32B8E.F86335E1@elca-matrix.ch>...
> > Does anybody know of a utility that can check for unneccessary with'd
> > packages? Obviously it would be harder to spot for packages that are
also
> > use'd, but if the utility also looks at the with'd package to see if
> > anything is actually used, it could be done.
> 
> gnatf (part of the GNAT compiler) does that.
>
Yes you can do this with gnatf -x1
It sometimes reports that with clauses are not needed incorrectly however.

Re: Redundant With Remover

[spoons]

In article <34D32B8E.F86335E1@elca-matrix.ch>,
  Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch wrote:
>
> > Does anybody know of a utility that can check for unnecessary with'd
> > packages? Obviously it would be harder to spot for packages that are also
> > use'd, but if the utility also looks at the with'd package to see if
> > anything is actually used, it could be done.
>
> gnatf (part of the GNAT compiler) does that.

I've been trying to use gnatf, but it doesn't get very far.  It keeps on
failing at various packages saying they aren't predefined, yet as far as
I know, they are: unchecked_deallocation, calendar, system, etc.  Anyway
to specify which packages it should ignore as being 'predefined'?

JD

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet

Re: Redundant With Remover

[Robert Dewar]

JD asks

<<I've been trying to use gnatf, but it doesn't get very far.  It keeps on
failing at various packages saying they aren't predefined, yet as far as
I know, they are: unchecked_deallocation, calendar, system, etc.  Anyway
to specify which packages it should ignore as being 'predefined'?
>>

Sounds like some kind of usage error. We certainly use gnatf all the
time on the GNAT sources for finding unused withs. Actually an
improvement planned for the near future is to integrate this processing
into the compiler so that it is automatic.

Re: Redundant With Remover

[Oliver.Kellogg]

For finding whether the same unit is withed more than once in an
Ada unit, you can also use the verbose flat mode of withlist.pl,

http://sw-eng.falls-church.va.us/AdaIC/tools/withlist/withlist-pl.txt

This is just a side note and does not really answer the original poster's
question of finding whether a single "with" is necessary or not.

--Oliver

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading