- From: Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>
- To: gtk-devel-list redhat com
- Subject: Re: --g-fatal-warnings
- Date: 17 Aug 1998 19:18:09 -0400
Tim Janik <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, Tim Janik wrote:
> > hi all,
> > after Glib supporting different log levels and domains now,
> > gtk gained a few more options to specify fatal warnings.
> > glib logs g_warning() with G_LOG_LEVEL_WARNING, g_error()
> > with G_LOG_LEVEL_ERROR, and g_return*_if_fail() with
> > G_LOG_LEVEL_CRITICAL, since the latter is different from
> > a normal warning in that it actually causes abortion of
> > certain functions.
> > gtk_init() currently features:
> > --g-fatal-warnings for abortion on g_warning in GLib
> > --gdk-fatal-warnings for abortion on g_warning in GDK
> > --gtk-fatal-warnings for abortion on g_warning in GTK+
> > --g-fatal-checks for abortion on g_return*_if_fail in GLib
> > --gdk-fatal-checks for abortion on g_return*_if_fail in GDK
> > --gtk-fatal-checks for abortion on g_return*_if_fail in GTK+
> > i'd like that to reduce to either
> > --gtk-fatal-warnings for abortion on g_warning in GTK+/GDK/GLib/GModule
> > --gtk-fatal-checks for abortion on g_return*_if_fail in GTK+/GDK/GLib/GModule
> > or
> > --gtk-fatal-checks for abortion on g_return*_if_fail and g_warning in
> > GTK+/GDK/GLib/GModule
> ok, i'm going to take the latter suggestion if no one objects
> (prior to the upcoming release on tuesday night).
> > what are peoples opinions on this issue?
> not too late to raise voices! ;)
--g-fatal-warnings to abort on all g_warning and g_return*_if_fail
(Including application domain specific ones)
Simple, convenient, and easy to understand.
[ In any case--gtk-fatal-checks is a bad name, since if checks were fatal,
any GTK+ progam wouldn't last long... Only failed checks are
fatal... in this usage ]
Also, I don't see any real reason to split off g_return_*_if_fail
into a separate 'critical' warning level.
] [Thread Prev