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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fd63afa4dc364b7e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-03-22 08:59:28 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.tele.dk!205.231.236.10!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp.msen.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!world!bobduff From: Robert A Duff Subject: Re: Implementing C/C++ style #include... Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 16:57:32 GMT References: <98m938$2iod0$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> <3ab9f314.13778993@news.geccs.gecm.com> Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:6001 Date: 2001-03-22T16:57:32+00:00 List-Id: "Pat Rogers" writes: > > if Debug.Mode > Minimal then > > test_mode.test_code; > > end if; > > > > The compiler should optimise out the debug code when Mode = Off. And > > it's portable. > > By what rule in the RM is the code removed? He didn't say anything about the RM. He said "The compiler *should* ...", and I agree -- it should. (And of course the RM doesn't say anything about "code" or "removal of code", which was perhaps your point?) - Bob