Created attachment 311334 [details] [review]
gfileutils: Add precondition checks to g_file_test()

Otherwise g_file_test(NULL, …) causes a call to access(NULL, …) on
Linux, which is disallowed and valgrind complains about it.

I'm not a huge fan of slapping these onto everything. A != NULL check really adds very little, and it is not free.

(In reply to Matthias Clasen from comment #2)
> A != NULL check really adds very little

It adds a runtime warning message when the programmer does something bad, and a convenient way of breaking on the error with G_DEBUG=fatal-warnings.

> and it is not free.

Isn’t that what G_DISABLE_CHECKS is for?

(In reply to Philip Withnall from comment #3)

> Isn’t that what G_DISABLE_CHECKS is for?

G_DISABLE_CHECKS disables _all_ runtime checks. The useless ones and the useful ones. Thats not an excuse for adding more and more useless ones...

(In reply to Matthias Clasen from comment #4)
> (In reply to Philip Withnall from comment #3)
> 
> > Isn’t that what G_DISABLE_CHECKS is for?
> 
> G_DISABLE_CHECKS disables _all_ runtime checks. The useless ones and the
> useful ones. Thats not an excuse for adding more and more useless ones...

Then what’s the point in G_DISABLE_CHECKS? Runtime checks should never fail; if one does, that’s a programming error. As I understand it, if someone cares about runtime performance, they should set G_DISABLE_CHECKS for their release builds, and keep it unset for development builds.

Review of attachment 311334 [details] [review]:

Sure

Attachment 311334 [details] pushed as a5b58da - gfileutils: Add precondition checks to g_file_test()