schmorp at schmorp.de
Thu Apr 10 02:30:50 CEST 2008
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 06:56:22PM -0500, Brandon Black <blblack at gmail.com> wrote:
> >I have different standards.
> No need to get personal with attacks on my "standards".
You said it is a moot point for you, I just pointed out that I have
different standards of what is moot and what isn't.
Are you too intolerant to allow me the right to have different standards?
That would be rather poor of you.
Nobody was attacking you, and there is no reason to react so childishly
by accusing people of "getting personal". I *did* ask you to provide
evidence for your conclusions, and it would be far more helpful of you to
answer those questions then reacting like you do just now. Your behaviour
certainly doesn't seem to come from trying to fix problems, otherwise
you'd explain how you came to your conclusions.
I am interested in writing good software, reaching a goal, creating
> If it's a valgrind bug then fine, it's a valgrind bug.
Well, it is a valgrind bug. I was initially confused by the thread you
mentioned because it seemed to quote from the posix manpages, but the
manpages are, in fact, unambigious.
> Look, either the change you applied to skip scanning revents on a retval
> of zero is a "blind kludge" or an optimization that happens to
> workaround a valgrind bug. If you think it's a blind kludge and its
> optimization value is dubious (or even negative), then by all means
> don't apply the workaround, nobody's forcing you.
Again, I don't understand why you act so childishly. I asked you a number of
questions on statements you said, which would help me decide what the best
way to proceed would be.
I don't see why you couldn't just be helpful instead of being obstructive.
To make good decisions, I need knowledge. You made some statements about
conclusions you made that I cannot follow. I asked you to explain your
reasoning and the evidence you base your conclusion on, but so far, rhere is
no indication that you would do so.
Instead, you seemingly try to force a change by claiming it would be moot, it
would be a performance optimisation, it would fix a real issue on "some
systems" etc. etc.
I am not inclined to make badly thought-out decisions just because
somebody makes some claims that might turn out to be wrong.
> All I've done here is seen a valgrind output flagging a potential
Well, thats much less than what you wrote in your earlier mail, so lets
assume you exaggerated a bit to make the issue seem more important than it
really was, to reach some goal.
> I don't see how that is any indication that I lack standards.
Well, nobody accused you of lacking standards. Claiming indirectly as if
somebody did is trolling, and this will get us nowhere, so stop doing it, or
get ignored: there are people who have work to do, and part of that involves
improving libev for the real world, and not make work around some obscure
bugs in some memory chekcing tools.
If you do care about quality, then help improve the tool you use and rely
on - valgrind - don't try to push changes and workarounds into other
projects by exaggerating evidence.
The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
-----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net
----==-- _ generation
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg at goof.com
More information about the libev