On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 3:16 PM Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > There's some debugging code in mailmap.c which is only compiled if you > manually tweak the source to set DEBUG_MAILMAP. When it's not set, the > fallback noop uses static inline functions; we couldn't use macros here > because one of the functions is variadic (and variadic macros were > forbidden back then, but aren't now). As a result, this triggers > a -Wunused-parameter warning. > > We have a few options here: > > 1. Leave it be. Just mark it as UNUSED, or switch to a variadic macro. > > 2. Assume the debugging code is useful, compile it always, and trigger > it with a run-time flag (e.g., with a trace key). This is pretty > easy to do, and carries a pretty small runtime cost. > > 3. Assume the debugging is not very useful, and just rip it out. This > matches what we did with a similar case in 69c5f17f11 (attr: drop > DEBUG_ATTR code, 2022-10-06). > > The debugging flag has been mentioned only three times on the list. > Once, when it was added in 2009: > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover.1234102794.git.marius@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > In 2013, when somebody fixed some compilation errors in the conditional > code (presumably because they used it while making other changes): > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/1373871253-96480-1-git-send-email-sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > And finally it seemed to have been useful to somebody in 2021: > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/87eejswql6.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Nit: s/2021/2020/ > So it's not totally without value. On the other hand, it's not likely to > be useful to non-developers (and certainly isn't if you have to > recompile). And using a debugger or adding your own inspection code is > likely to be as useful. So I've just dropped the code entirely here. > > Note that we do still have to mark a few parameters unused in callback > functions which are passed to string_list_clear_func(). Those get an > extra pointer with the string being cleared, which we previously fed to > the debugging code. > > Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> > --- > I'm cc-ing folks from those earlier threads. If somebody really wants to > salvage it, I can prepare a patch converting it to a trace variable > instead, but absent any outcry, I'd go with this approach. As one of the mentioned anonymous "sombody"s, I have no objection.
