This is the mail archive of the gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: dead code identification

From: Matthew Woehlke <mw_triad at users dot sourceforge dot net>
To: gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:55:45 -0600
Subject: Re: dead code identification
References: <200802120850.22606.mark.hampton@certess.com> <fov5o3$pf5$1@ger.gmane.org> <b798aad50802130844v7e3cfc4akdd34ade00f6f81b@mail.gmail.com>

Diego Novillo wrote:

On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Matthew Woehlke
<PLEASE.DONT.QUOTE.MY.EMAIL.ADDRESS@I.GET.ENOUGH.SPAM> wrote:

 I guess someone should point out that some commercial compilers (Sun's
 comes to mind) issue warnings for unreachable code. IMO this would make
 a nice improvement to gcc.


See -Wunreachable-code in the documentation.  Unreachable code and
dead code are different things

They are? If so, (not counting dead variables) I guess I don't know the difference. Neither, it seems, does wikipedia [1]. Maybe you should fix that? :-)

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreachable_code

-- Matthew "It's ok, I forgive you. I often confuse cream cheese with happiness myself ;-)" -- Jeremy Whiting (responding to a rather strange yet amusing conversation I'd started; also, I agree with the sentiment)

Follow-Ups:
- Re: dead code identification
  - From: Diego Novillo

References:
- dead code identification
  - From: Mark Hampton
- Re: dead code identification
  - From: Matthew Woehlke
- Re: dead code identification
  - From: Diego Novillo

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]