I can't comment on the trouble of doing one versus the other. Who knows? I hear you on the value of the warning. *Anything* a compiler can do to move potential errors from run-time problems to compile-time messages is a potential boon to productivity.
You should not have to actually "read" the MAP listing -- you can just see if there are *any* machine instructions that the compiler claims correspond to your dead source code. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg Shirey Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 9:02 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Enterprise COBOL v5.1 Implemented? Hmm, remove the code but not the literal? That seems more trouble than it's worth and to what end? I could probably look at the pseudo assembler listing, but that's not my strong suit. What does it hurt? Well, if I wrote a COBOL program and the compiler reported that a huge chunk of it was discarded because it would never be executed, my response would probably be "Oops, I didn't mean to do that." With COBOL 5.1, I won't know part of my program is not executing until I possibly don't get the results I expected. Right? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
