On 27.06.2019, at 17:35, Vittorio Giovara <vittorio.giov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 9:44 AM Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote: > >> Kieran Kunhya (12019-06-27): >>> I'm happy to do it now that I am aware of the issue. I will do it when I >> am >>> at home in a few days. >> >> Thanks. I am sure Steven will not mind waiting a few days. >> >>> This absolutism is absurd. >> >> Do you have an example of situation where dead code is good? >> > > If i could add my 2 cents, for a reverse engineered codec it's important to > leave unused functions purely for documentation purposes, so that future > maintainers could implement and read about it right away, rather than > digging in a large and messy git history. > Additionally most compilers run passes that drop dead code already in a way > that does not affect runtime one bit. So I really don't see any gains in > removing these 14 lines of code. I'd note that intentionally dead code should at least have a comment, and maybe even a #if 0 would make sense (though has the disadvantage of not even compile-testing the code). In case of an actual bug like here I would say dead code if nothing else is a reminder of the bug, though admittedly a very poor one. Either way I suggest to discuss such things more relaxed, a few days more or less hardly matters and there might be useful insights from other people (of course I don't mean to delay non-controversial stuff nobody has any comments/objections on). Best regards, Reimar Döffinger _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
