Re: Reducing the weight of g_return_if_fail()

[Tim Janik <timj gtk org>]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Owen Taylor wrote:

> On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 03:05, Tim Janik wrote:
> > O
> > > Which is a significant saving for such a tiny patch...
> >
> > looks good and makes sense to me. i'd just not call it
> > g_return_failed_internal, that sounds as if a "return"
> > failed. what's bad about "g_return_if_fail_internal" ?
>
> I want with g_return_if_fail_warning().

hm, looking at this again, i think putting "_return_" into
a function name is not a good idea, it's ok for the macros
though, since they actually do perform a "return" for you.
so, better name it straight:

+void g_assertion_failed      (const char *log_domain,
+                              const char *pretty_function,
+                              const char *expression);
+
 #define g_return_if_fail(expr)         G_STMT_START{                   \
      if G_LIKELY(expr) { } else                                        \
        {                                                               \
-        g_log (G_LOG_DOMAIN,                                           \
-               G_LOG_LEVEL_CRITICAL,                                   \
-               "file %s: line %d (%s): assertion `%s' failed",         \
-               __FILE__,                                               \
-               __LINE__,                                               \
-               __PRETTY_FUNCTION__,                                    \
-               #expr);                                                 \
+        g_assertion_failed       (G_LOG_DOMAIN,                        \
+                                  __PRETTY_FUNCTION__,                 \
+                                  #expr);                              \
         return;                                                        \
        };


>
> Regards,
> 						Owen
>

---
ciaoTJ