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