clipka wrote:
> Optimizers aren't designed to detect bogus code - they're designed to speed up
> things.

Sure, but it sounded like an optimization that only worked on bogus code, 
which seemed like a waste of time of the person writing the optimizer.

Macros make a good explanation why, tho.

> As I already pointed out above, it may also have been code that the developer
> left in there just for clarity, to be removed later, or whatever, *expecting*
> the compiler to optimize it away.

I think this is different. Your cases, sure.

> At this point, in a good commercial project the developer would already get his
> head chopped off

Well, to be fair, they all know it's bogus. It's been at 0.9.x for like five 
years. :-) I'm always amused at open source folks who won't recognise that 
the first thing they give to the public is 1.0 regardless of how you number it.

> Checking in code you never actually compiled yourself? Hey, haven't done our
> homework, have we?!?

Crap like this would be completely untenable before Google, really.

> test team leader's head if it's intended to be a portable thing and the code is
> activated only on certain target platforms (unless of course the code is a fix
> for an exotic platform that isn't available in-house).

This happened to be some mips-specific assembly. Not exactly exotic, but 
then why are you changing that file if you don't have a mips chip to test it 
on in the first place?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message