Talk:Dead code

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Vis-a-vis standard and published definitions of dead code, redundant code, and unreachable code,[1][2] I have updated and changed the articles for dead code, redundant code, and unreachable code. --Dorchard (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Debray, S. K., Evans, W., Muth, R., and De Sutter, B. 2000. Compiler techniques for code compaction. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 22, 2 (Mar. 2000), 378-415.
  2. ^ Appel, A. W. 1998 Modern Compiler Implementation in Java. Cambridge University Press.

Inconsistent definitions[edit]

In the introduction, the article says that dead code _is_ executed, but that the result is never used. Afterwards, the second example states that the code in the example is never executed, thus dead code. If the definition of dead code does cover both cases, it should be stated in the introduction. 77.188.10.7 (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible example[edit]

Since the example shown has effects (e.g., behaviour when div-by-zero occurs) this is a *terrible* example since it's not really dead code -- effects of a statement *are observables* -- and cannot be removed by a compiler without affecting program semantics. Dead code only effects execution time, not behaviours, and execution time is (under most semantical notions) considered unobservable.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.148.35.60 (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page is noted as a stub, but I'm not sure there is really anything more to be said than is already here.

Maybe an example or something. Also, please sign your posts. Wouter Lievens 19:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

Is dead code the same thing as unreachable code? Should there be a merge? Deco 18:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, the terms seem to be equivalent. I'll propose a merge. Ibroadfo 16:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge done. Article has been redirected to unreachable code. Jamie 22:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, dead code is executed but the results not used, unreachable code is not. Sae1962 (talk) 06:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal[edit]

I removed this sentence:

... indeed, it is by definition performing no function it is hard to prove a negative

Perhaps it can be reworded? --216.232.210.238 00:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Java[edit]

If you mention Java compiler, then mention C/C++ compiler (or other) as well. Magicoast (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Magicoast, so there is no need to mention Java separately, all modern compilers are smart enough. --N90p (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dead_code&oldid=1206906111"