Hi On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 10:30 AM Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Hi > > > > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 6:23 PM Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > >> Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >> > Hi > >> > > >> > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> > wrote: > [...] > >> >> g_assert_not_reached() is problematic, see "[PATCH] checkpatch: > Disallow > >> >> glib asserts in main code". > >> >> > >> >> Message-Id: <20170427165526.19836-1-dgilb...@redhat.com> > >> >> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-04/msg05499.html > >> >> > >> >> > >> > Actually g_assert() and g_assert_not_reached() are accepted. > >> > >> What exactly does g_assert() buy us over plain assert(), and > >> g_assert_not_reached() over assert(0)? > >> > > > > g_assert() brings a bit more context, afaik, can be trapped for error > > testing, and error reporting can be handled by an handler. Not that > useful > > to qemu, but could be for the graphical UI though. > > > > g_assert_not_reached() is quite more readable than assert(0) > > I'm all for making intent explicit, but what else could assert(0) > possibly mean? > > >> qapi/ overwhelmingly uses assert(). > >> > > > > ok, it's already a mix of assert & g_assert in qemu though > > True. > > In my opinion, we should use only one outside tests. g_assert() if it > adds value, else plain assert(). "Outside tests", because g_assert() > might add sufficient value in tests even when it doesn't elsewhere. > > g_assert*() is useful in the unit under test, so you can check the assert behaviour. This could be useful in particular for the assertions under qapi/ since we have unit tests for those > Until then, I prefer to use only one *locally*. In qapi/, that's plain > assert() now. > ok, fair enough -- Marc-André Lureau
