Re: g_assert() semantics is changed without announce

[Tim Janik <timj imendio com>]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Andrew Cowie wrote:

> On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 13:06 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > The important part of the assert semantics are: if the assertion
> > fails, the program aborts.
> >
> > If you are using assertions in a way that make it important where or
> > how the message is reported
>
> In the Java bindings we trap the log messages that are raised by
> assertions and propagate a (quite fatal) Java Exception instead. That
> quite nicely terminates the program, but in a way that a) gives the
> developer some idea of where things are wrong, and b) doesn't crash the
> VM in the process. Crashing VMs are rather frowned upon.
>
> The fact that assert uses the existing log facility is lovely. Please
> revert back to this!

Thanks for the feedback and use case descriptions everyone, I can definitely
see the point why people want to see g_assert() using g_log() be restored.

Similar reasons do apply in the testing framework case though, e.g. assertion
messages from test programs should be sent on to the gtester framework
executavle for logging and should usually not pollute stderr.

I'll investigate if we either:
- Restore g_assert()s old logging behaviour unless g_test_init()
  has been called; or
- Restore g_assert()s old logging behaviour unconditionally and just
  capture + redirect everything from g_log() to gtester after
  g_test_init() has been called.

I hope that should fix everyone's issues.

> AfC
> Sydney

---
ciaoTJ