Re: lynx-dev Dead code removal

[Leonid Pauzner]

8-Mar-99 16:54 Klaus Weide wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, John Bley wrote:

>>
>> > Also, how much in the way of object size would removing these potentially
>> > useful fn()'s save, if in fact they really are unreferenced?
>> For a dozen mostly empty methods, probably not too much... few hundred
>> bytes at most.

> The most notable chunks of unused functions of some size may be in some of
> the HTAA_* files.

BTW, unused functions seems to be removed from the binary by linker/optimizer,
isn't it?

>> > For the sake
>> > of "completeness" (by some metric), it may be better to leave them in.
>> Which is kinda why I was asking about their history.  If they have a
>> chance of being used/implemented sometime soon, yeah, sure, leave them in
>> or comment them out in some way.

> There are "PUBLIC" and "PRIVATE" (static) functions.  I think we are only
> talking about PUBLIC functions - gcc gives warnings for unreferenced
> static functions.

> Most of the remaining unsused PUBLIC functions seem to be from an early
> time, probably parts of the libwww and linemode browser interface that
> remained unused when lynx went libwww.  I regard their presence as
> useful information, they kind of show the ideas behind the modularization.
> I would like to see these not removed completely, but commented out.
> (I also wouldn't like to see all comments by TimBL etc. removed, they can
> teach the archeologists among us something.)