On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 03:15:35PM +0100, Victor Toso wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 02:27:13PM +0100, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > > They can be used in spice-server to replace spice_return_if_fail. > > Currently spice_return_if_fail aborts in spice-server, and it's not > > always clear whether using a non-aborting g_return_if_fail is acceptable > > or not. Having a spice_assert_if_fail alternative makes it clearer that > > this is not going to return, while having a name distinct from assert() > > so that places which needs reviewing can be spotted more easily. > > > > Acked-by: Jonathon Jongsma <jjongsma@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > common/log.h | 3 +++ > > tests/test-logging.c | 12 ++++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/common/log.h b/common/log.h > > index 0e03f59..b83b0e0 100644 > > --- a/common/log.h > > +++ b/common/log.h > > @@ -95,6 +95,9 @@ void spice_log(const char *log_domain, > > } \ > > } G_STMT_END > > > > +#define spice_assert_val_if_fail(cond, val) spice_assert(cond) > > I did not understand why you need spice_assert_val_if_fail if val is > ignored We currently have spice_return_if_fail/spice_return_val_if_fail which are similar to g_return_if_fail/g_return_val_if_fail, but abort. The naming is very confusing. The goal of these functions is to make it explicit that the function is aborting, and at the same time to mark the location as a good candidate for replacement by g_return_val_if_fail. Christophe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel