2
\$\begingroup\$

I have a question about usage of libraries, harming performance of other code. I thought the question would fit Code Review being a general point about coding, prepared and put it into CR.SE.

I invested some time to strip down to a short and understandable reproducible case, even prepared 'fire and forget' compile scripts, and - tried to - explain my worries in a concise and understandable way.

Posted it as Are libraries allowed to slow down normal function calls?.

I was asked to explain what the code does, which I did, yet didn't change the title (as requested); the question was ultimately downvoted and migrated to Stack Overflow. There it was again criticized regarding 'what it does', I explained and adapted the title. chux asked for unused variables and the output, want(ed) to provide that, the migration was rejected by Stack Overflow and is back on Code Review.

I tried to edit the original post on CR.SE, re-checked every advice in the help section and FAQ... and hoped that qualified, however find the path here confusing and irritating...

\$\endgroup\$

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
5
\$\begingroup\$

I thought the question would fit Code Review being a general point about coding, prepared and put it into CR.SE.

Exactly the opposite is the case. Code Review as a site is intended for feedback on your code. Specifically your code, not "the general example of [...]". That's why the question was migrated to StackOverflow.

Migrations used to be a complicated, arcane process that resulted in posts getting stuck in a limbo-state "between sites" when migrations were rejected. This was changed to no longer result in limbo, but instead the question on the source site is now reopened.

Generally speaking I like that, but it seems like it caused some confusion here.

Sorry this was quite a chaotic thing, but this question shouldn't have been migrated in the first place. Generally speaking it would've been "better suited" to stack overflow, getting it clarified over there might get you perspectives from outside of the gcc bug tracker, although it seems like your problem was found in the meantime :)

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think you are correct that it should not have been migrated, as a moderator I would not have migrated it. I might have tried to improve it. It was migrated by community votes. \$\endgroup\$ Commented May 8 at 11:48
4
\$\begingroup\$

You invested some time, I don't doubt that. However, this line:

"I invested some time to strip down to a short and understandable reproducible case"

goes against the third question in the help/on-topic page:

"Is it actual code from a project rather than pseudo-code or hypothetical code?

Details matter! In order to give good advice, we need to see real, concrete code, and understand the context in which the code is used."

Modifying the code before posting to make it 'fit' a format the site does not cater for leads to miscommunication. I've seen this happen lots of times before.

For extra context on that, see our Why is hypothetical example code off-topic for Code Review?

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ hi, thank you, that sheds some light, however ... The real project has some thousands line of code which seems impractical to me to post in any forum. The spin-off to dig down wasn't made for CR only, but for my analysis so that was / is a separate self contained project. The extra effort for CR was to arrange nicely and strip - most of - unused code which I normally keep as reference, but was criticized in former questions. I understand "from a project" as "from", not as "full" ... wrong? And understand "not hypothetical" as it runs and works, not as "the complete project" - wrong? \$\endgroup\$ Commented May 9 at 3:48
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @user1018684 I can not tell from here whether you stripped relevant or irrelevant code away, I'm just going by what you've told us. If you've only removed dead code, that's code that should never have been there to begin with. Naturally, that is not a problem. However, when people start talking about stripping code to a short reproducible case they often mean something along the lines of an MRE (sometimes known as MCVE). While Stack Overflow loves those, Code Review does not handle them well. The difference often trips people up. \$\endgroup\$ Commented May 9 at 8:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ :-) , start to understand more, nice not to be alone in irritations. If one looks on the system from outside, a new user, he's mostly told "investigate yourself as good as you can", "clearly present the issue", "don't bother us with unnecessary things", "give full system description", but some sites are different, and it's much! work to elaborate, and remember the idiosyncrasies for multiple of them. Esp. to decide between "site rules" and deviating single users preferences. IMHO some tolerance that users can't provide "best questions" would be meaningful over too much nitpicking. \$\endgroup\$ Commented May 9 at 9:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.