In our previous episode, Hans-Peter Diettrich said: > > Do you still plan to at least detect cycles for debugging purposes? > > > > Or is the cycle detection itself already too hard? > > > > IOW I'm wondering what will happen (and what to do) if there is a cycle in a > > sufficiently complex program. > > I could imagine a tool for that purpose, instead of burdening the > compiler with such rarely used functionality.
I was not thinking about static, but runtime analysis. I didn't say anything about compiler at all, I was more thinking RTL. > More diagnostics could be > removed from the compiler, like the detection of unused local variables > or units - if that helps to speed up compilation Those are inheritly static. But cycles are afaik not. > Separate diagnostic tools could immediately offer means to solve the > detected problems interactively, what's not the purpose of an compiler. If I read all the happy users on this thread, I believe this feature will be absolutely peachy :-) So since then this is only needed for extreme cases, such interactivity might be a bit too much :-) _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - [email protected] http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
