RFC: Change what assert does on error

[Timon Gehr]

On 6/29/25 20:04, Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole wrote:
> 
> Should an assert fail, the most desirable behaviour for it to have is to 
> print a backtrace if possible and then immediately kill the process.
> 
> What a couple of us are suggesting is that we change the default 
> behaviour from ``throw AssertError``.
> To: ``printBacktrace; exit(-1);``

I don't want this, it's highly undesirable. I agree that silently 
killing only the single thread is terrible, but that's not something 
that affects me at the moment.

I guess you could kill the process instead of killing just the single 
thread, but breaking the stack unrolling outright is not something that 
is acceptable to me.