[PATCH 3/3] debug.h: hint a compiler: TRACE is not executed in common usage

[Konstantin Kharlamov]

On 30.01.2019 20:13, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel at yandex.ru> writes:
> 
>> On 30.01.2019 13:43, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>>> Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel at yandex.ru> writes:
>>>
>>>> I'll test later if it works under Windows and report a wine bug if it
>>>> does; but if anybody is aware of any other free windows benchmarkss
>>>> for memory allocation of threads creation that work under wine, I'll
>>>> be happy to try them out.
>>>>
>>>> I guess there's no haste since someone for some reason told Marvin to
>>>> reject my patch (let's hope it was just a misclick without any
>>>> malicious intention).
>>>
>>> I rejected the patch, and I explained why. If you can come up with
>>> convincing benchmarks numbers, please resend it and we can discuss it
>>> further.
>>
>> We're programmers, please, let's stay technical. Your explanation was
>> some abstract "burden", and I asked you to formalize the "burden". You
>> ignored me. At the same time on my part I provided you with good
>> arguments why the patch is nice to have. What you did next is ignoring
>> my reply whatsoever and rejecting the patch. And I must mention, you
>> did that in fact twice, even though discussion was ongoing.
> 
> You are the only one who's "discussing" it. I asked you to show
> convincing numbers, so you have a path forward. Until you come back with
> the numbers, there's no reason to continue the argument.

You see, this is exactly where you take your own opinion above anything 
else. There *are* other (mentioned) reasons for including the patch 
beside "convincing numbers", but you silently decided for everyone else 
on the list.

> The most precious resource we need to conserve is not branch prediction
> cycles, it's developers' cycles. That's why you shouldn't change things
> that don't need changing, you shouldn't add complexity that isn't
> needed

Well, I guessed that by burden you mean code complexity. And I already 
replied on that one, at least in the mail with pros'n'cons. But you 
didn't reply, which made me think you might have meant something else on 
your mind. Discussion doesn't work when you expose your disagreement by 
a blunt force, such as silently rejecting patches.

 > , and you should spend extra effort on your side to save other
 > developers' time. These are the kind of burdens I'm talking about.

This advice works both sides. If you took time to prove your point 
instead of what you did, that likely wouldn't have resulted in a dozen 
of mails, ⅔ of which doesn't move discussion anywhere.