Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 01/17] qapi: fix error propagation

[Luiz Capitulino]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 22:31:26 +0200
Laszlo Ersek <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 07/16/12 19:12, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 21:11:15 +0200
> > Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> 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 :)

If that means it's finding bugs then that's great. On the other hand, if it
shows only false positives and we end up having to re-work the code just to
avoid that, then I'd agree on not having an assert().