dlls/ntdll/file.c: Use FIXME_ONCE for quieter reports.

Saulius Krasuckas saulius2 at ar.fi.lt
Thu Jul 15 04:11:59 CDT 2010

* On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Chris Robinson wrote:
> * On Wednesday, July 14, 2010 5:02:59 pm Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
> > 
> > 'FIXME's that contain no variable information are completely redundant 
> > after their first report. After the first reminder, the additional 
> > reports are just noise. They add no additional information in terms of 
> > action required.
> I wouldn't say that. Sometimes the simple knowledge that a FIXME is 
> called a whole lot says enough on its own (eg, in WineD3D, you get a 
> fixme when an sRGB reload occurs, because it's a performance drain; if 
> this happens a lot, it can be taken as a source for performance issues). 
> Sometimes knowing particular a fixme is triggered near to a crash or 
> other behavioral anomaly can say a bit, too.

Although I stand for *_ONCE implementation, I agree with Chris.

And there might be some alternative: lets then implement it like a 


Which could print something like a 

  "fixme:channel:a_debug_string [repeated N times]"

This would not oly still tell you approximate frequency of a FIXME, but it 
also would require developer to know reasonable occurence quanta value (N) 
or to tune it later.  This (for me) sounds like a way to know the code's 
stochastic behaviour better!  Which would be a plus.

> If such fixmes were only printed once, it would be impossible to see 
> this information without more in-depth testing that most users won't 
> bother with. If the fixme is only printed once and the rest are TRACEs, 
> it would still cause more work and a whole lot more noise (ie. all the 
> other traces) in trying to spot it.

TRACE_ONCE probably could help in some cases too.  There I see another 
constraint of *_ONCE functionality.  "Once" could be per block (eg. 
for-loop), per wrapping function call, per process or even once per 
thread's life.

Implementing all onces might be difficult, IMHO.  Though not all of 
them could be necessary, probably.

* On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> The patches which silense some FIXME's have been accepted as an 
> exception. That covers the code which is unlikely to be fixed in near 
> future, or the code nobody is working on.

Then at least replacement of these (ugly by their size, IMHO) 
silence-blocks with a simple FIXME_ONCE seems rational.


More information about the wine-devel mailing list