From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:51631)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1Sqrvy-0005Cf-5J
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:30:23 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1Sqrvt-0005p8-BE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:30:22 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47053)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1Sqrvt-0005oK-39
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:30:17 -0400
Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q6GKUFsj024494
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:30:15 -0400
Message-ID: <50047A1E.8030304@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 22:31:26 +0200
From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1339575768-2557-1-git-send-email-lersek@redhat.com>
	<1339575768-2557-2-git-send-email-lersek@redhat.com>
	<20120713133852.3a446672@doriath.home>
	<50005B3D.2070009@redhat.com> <500072D3.2060901@redhat.com>
	<20120716141200.5bbed537@doriath.home>
In-Reply-To: <20120716141200.5bbed537@doriath.home>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 01/17] qapi: fix error propagation
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 07/16/12 19:12, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 21:11:15 +0200
> Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:

> 
>> I think doing it for error_set was just for symmetry and to avoid
>> introducing excessive complexity.
> 
> We already check if the error is set in several places, and I don't think
> it will add much complexity. I still think that an assert() is better.

If that means that the generated traversal code takes responsibility to
call any visitor callback with a fresh error receptacle, IOW I can go
ahead and just use error_set() in OptsVisitor and any firing assert will
be blamed on the generator: fine :)

Thanks,
Laszlo