Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: 10.2 Bug?

Re: 10.2 Bug?

From: Andy Hassall <andy_at_andyh.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 23:49:43 +0000
Message-ID: <k20lu1hiqj8765nabjclhu7npvshguungt@4ax.com>


On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 15:02:52 -0800, DA Morgan <damorgan_at_psoug.org> wrote:

>From where I stand, looking at how it performs I'd
>say it is (if not a bug) not as helpful as it used to be as I can see
>it marking and IF ELSIF ELSIF ELSIF ELSIF ELSE ENDIF as unreachable
>just because one element is: Something for me to test this weekend when
>what I really want is a pointer to the element(s) that are specifically
>unreachable.

 As it stands, I see the results in this case as being _more_ useful. It's pointing out more code that can be removed without changing the operation of the program - so why's it there in the first place?

 Maybe it'd be clearer if there was a separate PLW "optimiser removed redundant code" - but then again once the optimiser's removed it, it _is_ unreachable code.

 It should only mark lines that really are redundant - presumably with an IF/ELSIF/ELSIF/ENDIF it'll only mark the specific branches where it can prove that the conditions are impossible. If it starts marking other branches as unreachable then that'd be a bug - but here the "IF x = 10" conditional is clearly pointless as x is a constant value 10 through all code paths, so it's trivially true and there's no point it doing the comparison at runtime.

-- 
Andy Hassall :: andy@andyh.co.uk :: http://www.andyh.co.uk
http://www.andyhsoftware.co.uk/space :: disk and FTP usage analysis tool
Received on Wed Feb 08 2006 - 17:49:43 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US