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

[Henri Verbeet]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 21:06, Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel at yandex.ru> wrote:
> On 30.01.2019 20:13, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> > 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.
>
As someone else on the list, that's not quite how I see this
conversation. Even if it *were* though, saying "no" is pretty much a
maintainer's prerogative.

> > 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.
>
I'd hardly call this thread silent. If I can try to give a
constructive suggestion though, I get the impression that you put a
lot of value on the patch status as displayed on the status page. That
status isn't that important; the status page is meant to give people
more insight into different reasons a patch might not have been
committed, and avoid losing track of patches. Your path forward is
still to try to make a more convincing argument, regardless of what
the status page may say.