Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes: > On 02/01/2016 06:07 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes: >> >>> No backend was setting an error when ending an implicit struct, >>> or when iterating a list. >> >> Perhaps "when ending the visit of a list or implicit struct, or when >> moving to the next list node" would be more precise. If you like it, I >> can do that on commit.
Done. >>> Make the callers a bit easier to follow >>> by making this a part of the contract, and removing the errp >>> argument - callers can then unconditionally end an object as >>> part of cleanup without having to think about whether a second >>> error is dominated by a first, because there is no second error. >>> >>> A later patch will then tackle the larger task of splitting >>> visit_end_struct(), which can indeed set an error (and that >>> cleanup will also have the side-effect of removing the use of >>> error_abort added here). > > Oh, while you're touching this up, the last half of this sentence is now > stale (since the addition of &error_abort was split out into 22/25 > instead); I'd just delete the entire parenthetical, ending with "indeed > set an error." Done.
