> > On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 11:38:14AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > Another question is however "Are we going to use g_critical as > > g_critical?". It sounds a tricky question. Let say that a new person > > starts to look at the code and knows GLib. He see g_critical and > > think "well, this by default log a critical warning and continue" > > but instead on Spice is always fatal. > > Unless I am confused, g_critical() should have the usual default > behaviour, and spice_critical() aborts, see > test_spice_abort_level_g_warning and the following tests > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/spice/spice-common/blob/master/tests/test-logging.c#L62 > > Christophe > But you suggested c3d to use g_critical instead of spice_critical, isn't it confusing? Forgot about telling what I think about logging and g_XXX vs spice_XXX. I agree we should use a single API to avoid confusion but should be consistent, not introducing free regressions so spice_critical -> g_error and spice_return_if_fail/spice_return_val_if_fail/spice_assert -> g_assert (making sure it's never disabled!). Frediano _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel