On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 11:52 +0200, Tim Janik wrote:
i'd like to propose to turn g_assert and friends like g_assert_not_reached
into warnings instead of errors. i'll give a bit of background before the
details though.
the main reasons we use g_return_if_fail massively throughout the glib and
hi,
Marco Barisione schrieb:
Il giorno ven, 12/10/2007 alle 15.16 +0200, Tim Janik ha scritto:
please reread my reasoning about G_DISABLE_ASSERT, there already is no
behavior
of g_assert() you could rely on. (and some distributions do build their
binaries with G_DISABLE_ASSERT and/or
hey All.
i'd like to propose to turn g_assert and friends like g_assert_not_reached
into warnings instead of errors. i'll give a bit of background before the
details though.
the main reasons we use g_return_if_fail massively throughout the glib and
gtk+ code base is that it catches API misuses
Am Freitag, den 12.10.2007, 11:52 +0200 schrieb Tim Janik:
note that in practice, this shouldn't change anything for programmers
(except for the ability to write better code ;)
because of G_DISABLE_ASSERT, programmers can already not rely on
failing assertions to abort their programs (only
Hey,
Why not introduce a new check, some g_check_stuff() which would
do what you propose? And let g_assert() be what it is, a glib analog
of C assert(). When an assertion fails, you can't possibly expect the
code to function in any meaningful way, e.g.
int idx;
g_assert (idx = 0);
c) programs that aren't 100% bug free could possibly trigger these warnings
during production. aborting would take all the end user data with it,
created/modified images, text documents, etc.
issuing just a warnig preserves the possibility to still save crucial
data if the
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
Hey,
Why not introduce a new check, some g_check_stuff() which would
do what you propose? And let g_assert() be what it is, a glib analog
of C assert(). When an assertion fails, you can't possibly expect the
code to function in any meaningful way,
On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 14:40 +0200, Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
So I guess what you really want is some kind of g_soft_assert or some
g_warn_if_fail.
+1 on a g_warn_if_fail() API addition.
ciao,
Emmanuele.
--
Emmanuele Bassi,
W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.net
B: http://log.emmanuelebassi.net
Tim Janik wrote:
hey All.
i'd like to propose to turn g_assert and friends like g_assert_not_reached
into warnings instead of errors. i'll give a bit of background before the
details though.
Like Mathias, I was in a bit of hell no! mode when I first read this.
After reading your
2007/10/12, Tim Janik [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
hey All.
i'd like to propose to turn g_assert and friends like g_assert_not_reached
into warnings instead of errors. i'll give a bit of background before the
details though.
[snip]
While the reasoning to make programs seem less crashy sounds
Il giorno ven, 12/10/2007 alle 15.16 +0200, Tim Janik ha scritto:
please reread my reasoning about G_DISABLE_ASSERT, there already is no
behavior
of g_assert() you could rely on. (and some distributions do build their
binaries with G_DISABLE_ASSERT and/or G_DISABLE_CHECKS defined).
What
That's pretty much a no-go.
g_assert_warning is marked G_GNUC_NORETURN.
If you return from such a function, there is no telling what incorrect
assumption the
following code was compiled with, i.e., things that the compiler thought were in
registers all of a sudden are not. Crash. Burn. Toast.
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Owen Taylor wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 11:52 +0200, Tim Janik wrote:
i'd like to propose to turn g_assert and friends like g_assert_not_reached
into warnings instead of errors. i'll give a bit of background before the
details though.
This is an incompatible change.
On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 11:52 +0200, Tim Janik wrote:
i'd like to propose to turn g_assert and friends like g_assert_not_reached
into warnings instead of errors. i'll give a bit of background before the
details though.
This is an incompatible change. The contract now is that unless you
compile
On 10/12/07, Emmanuele Bassi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 14:40 +0200, Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
So I guess what you really want is some kind of g_soft_assert or some
g_warn_if_fail.
+1 on a g_warn_if_fail() API addition.
What is wrong with:
if (!everything_is_ok)
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
On 10/12/07, Emmanuele Bassi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 14:40 +0200, Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
So I guess what you really want is some kind of g_soft_assert or some
g_warn_if_fail.
+1 on a g_warn_if_fail() API addition.
16 matches
Mail list logo
