Julien Vary (12022-07-27):
> >Or maybe we could add av_abort() as an alias to av_assert0(0), which
> >eventually just calls abort()...
> 
> I agree that if the goal is to bail-out on 'should-not-be-reachable'
> code, something that alias av_assert0(0) seems a great idea.
> Shall we then give a more descriptive name than plain "av_abort()" for those situations?
> 
> Nicolas George & Hendrik Leppkes ? Your thoughts ?

I like “av_assert0(!"reason");” better than a blanket 0.

It can be a good habit to take from now on, but I do not think it is
worth changing the whole code.

av_assert0() calls av_log(), which can call user callbacks or allocate
memory: for dangerous cases, a real immediate abort() is still better.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George