On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 18:36:00 +0200
Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 09/06/2017 02:51 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> >>>> +void ccw_dstream_init(CcwDataStream *cds, CCW1 const *ccw, ORB const
> >>>> *orb)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + /*
> >>>> + * We don't support MIDA (an optional facility) yet and we
> >>>> + * catch this earlier. Just for expressing the precondition.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + assert(!(orb->ctrl1 & ORB_CTRL1_MASK_MIDAW));
> >>> I don't know, this is infrastructure, should it trust its callers? If
> >>> you keep the assert, please make it g_assert().
> >>
> >> Why g_assert? I think g_assert comes form a test framework, this is not
> >> test code.
> > g_assert() is glib, no?
> >
>
> It lives in GLib > GLib Utilities > Testing:
> https://developer.gnome.org/glib/stable/glib-Testing.html
>
> The description of "Testing" starts like this: "GLib provides a framework
> for writing and maintaining unit tests in parallel to the code they are
> testing. The API is designed according to established concepts found in
> the other test frameworks (JUnit, NUnit, RUnit), which in turn is based
> on smalltalk unit testing concepts."
>
> So yes, it's both glib and testing framework. This is why I
> ask why should one use g_assert in not-unit-test code.
I have searched the archives, but unfortunately was not able to come to
a conclusion. Checkpatch advises against using anything but g_assert or
g_assert_not_reached in anything but test code, but that is because
those other g_asserts can be made non-fatal. g_assert_not_reached does
not seem to have a non-glib equivalent.
I have it somewhere in the back of my mind that g_assert should be
preferred...
