GNU bug report logs - #75521
scratch/igc: Delete unused macro DEFVAR_LISP_NOPROX

Previous Next

Full log

Message #151 received at 75521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pip Cet <pipcet <at> protonmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 75521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, stefankangas <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#75521: scratch/igc: Delete unused macro DEFVAR_LISP_NOPROX
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:04:14 +0000

"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 17:52:13 +0000
>> From: Pip Cet <pipcet <at> protonmail.com>
>> Cc: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>, 75521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>>
>> "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>>
>> >> NSTATICS was last increased by Paul in 2013 (4195afc389bb).
>> >
>> > Actually, it was a year before, but I don't see how that changes the
>> > fact that redundant protecting should be avoided.
>>
>> That sentence is the straw that broke the camel's back.
>>
>> It's not a fact, it's an individual opinion which virtually everyone
>> else disagrees with (for very good reasons).  I certainly do.  Literally
>> the only argument that has been advanced to support this *opinion* is
>> that removing the *three* remaining _NOPROs (which are, at this point,
>> NOT redundant, but buggy) would somehow cause us to run out of NSTATICS,
>> which would mean more than doubling our staticpro calls overnight,
>> adding more than a thousand staticpros.
>
> It isn't an opinion.  Wasting memory is bad, period.

This is too ridiculous to leave uncommented: staticpro does not allocate
or increase memory usage in any way.  No memory is wasted.  staticvec
has a static size, and memory in it that's unused is not available for
other purposes.

(Of course, both the existence of a separate _NOPRO macro and the
now-redundant font_style_table vector do waste memory, which is one of
the reasons why my patch, which is being rejected because "wasting
memory is bad", removed them.)

> All your other arguments are about something else, and are definitely
> opinions.  (Though I don't understand since when or why "opinion"
> became a derogatory word around here.)

You claimed your opinion was a fact.  That might have been an honest
mistake, but it was pointed out to you and you responded with another
falsehood.

There's only so much good faith one can assume.

Pip

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.