svn commit: trunk/busybox/networking

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Sat, 1 Jul 2006, Paul Fox wrote:

>  > > >
>  > > >-#if 0
>  > > >-#define debug_noise(fmt, args...) printf(fmt, ## args)
>  > > >-#else
>  > > > #define debug_noise(fmt, args...)
>  > > >-#endif
>  > > >
>  > > > /* Forward declaration */
>  > > > struct interface_defn_t;
>  > >
>  > > Whoever that may be..
>  > > Doing stuff like this is nonsense, to say the least.
>  >
>  > um ... no, it isn't, since the notion of removing "dead" or "unused"
>  > code in the source tree has been discussed more than once before, and
>  > no one seemed all that upset by the suggestion at the time.
>
> that code is clearly not "dead".  it's someone being lazy.  (i.e.
> all they have to do to run on debugging is change a single character
> in the source file.)  if you don't want it to be "#if 0", change it
> to "#if DEBUG", but don't remove the entire thing.  if you do that,
> you might as well go through the file and remove all the invocations
> of that macro, too.

admittedly, when i go back and look at the changes i committed, that
is the one example where, if i had looked at it for a couple more
seconds, i would have made a different decision.  yours and bernhard's
points are well taken.

on that note, would someone like to suggest a standard for what
maintainers should use if they want to do that sort of thing in their
own code?  i'm leery of something as generic as "#ifdef DEBUG" since
that just *begs* to have code start clashing.

rday