Re: dead code identification

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: "Robert William Fuller" <hydrologiccycle@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: dead code identification
From: "Diego Novillo" <dnovillo@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:54:20 -0500
Cc: "Mark Hampton" <mark.hampton@xxxxxxxxxxx>, gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx, "Matthew Woehlke" <mw_triad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <47B359ED.3090904@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <200802120850.22606.mark.hampton@xxxxxxxxxxx> <fov5o3$pf5$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200802131744.23146.mark.hampton@xxxxxxxxxxx> <47B359ED.3090904@xxxxxxxxx>

On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Robert William Fuller
<hydrologiccycle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  The warning seems to be pretty lousy.  It reports on things that are
>  clearly reachable.

With convoluted control-flow, it's certainly possible that the
analysis heuristic gets confused.  Could you file a bug report with a
reproducible test case?

Thanks.  Diego.

References:
- dead code identification
  - From: Mark Hampton
- Re: dead code identification
  - From: Matthew Woehlke
- Re: dead code identification
  - From: Mark Hampton
- Re: dead code identification
  - From: Robert William Fuller

Prev by Date: Gloom and despair. Can't link any STL objects (gcc 4.2.2 on AIX 5.2)
Next by Date: Can GCC use more than 4G while compiling ?
Previous by thread: Re: dead code identification
Next by thread: is this a valid approach to aliasing?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux C Programming] [Linux Kernel] [eCos] [Fedora Development] [Fedora Announce] [Autoconf] [The DWARVES Debugging Tools] [Yosemite Campsites] [Yosemite News] [Linux GCC]

Powered by Linux