|[11 earlier articles]|
|Re: Optimizing Across && And || email@example.com (1995-03-07)|
|Re: Optimizing Across && And || firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-03-08)|
|Re: Optimizing Across && And || email@example.com (1995-03-13)|
|Re: Optimizing Across && And || firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-03-14)|
|Re: Optimizing Across && And || email@example.com (1995-03-15)|
|Re: Optimizing Across && And || firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-03-20)|
|Re: Optimizing Across && And || email@example.com (1995-03-21)|
|Re: Optimizing Across && And || firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-04-03)|
|From:||email@example.com (Scott David Daniels)|
|Organization:||Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR|
|Date:||Tue, 21 Mar 1995 18:42:45 GMT|
>firstname.lastname@example.org (Jim Balter) writes:
> What these people may be missing is that there is another side to dead code
> detection, namely *notification*. It is true that properly written programs
> shouldn't contain dead code. Therefore, presence of dead code indicates
> a possible problem.
While this is often true for a program which is written to solve one problem
on one machine, it is very often NOT true for software which is:
1) written to work efficiently in a portable environment.
---code tests invariants to determine which of two tuned loops to use.
2) re-compiled with differing size parameters fixed.
---code tests whether certain tables "fit" to determine data structures.
3) properly written ( :-> )
---Assertions are placed in the code to verify invariants.
Any programming system which rewards the removal of invariant
checking by the programmer is, IMHO, wrong-headed. Perhaps you
need a way to allow the programmer to claim some code may be
dead. I personally would like my compiler to remove code for
any of my assertions that it could prove true.
-Scott David Daniels
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.