On 02/24/2017 09:02 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: > >> On 23/02/2017 22:45, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>> The split between tests/test-qobject-input-visitor.c and >>> tests/test-qobject-input-strict.c now makes less sense than ever. The >>> next commit will take care of that. >> >> I'm actually adding a use for non-strict visitors (and one that makes >> sense IMHO, with comments, testcases and all that :)). See >> https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg432069.html. > > I replied.
Hmm. Right now, we implement strict checking by populating a hash table in parallel to the QObject being visited, then checking if it gets emptied. I wonder if it would be any simpler to clone the QObject and then remove keys, rather than tracking a separate hash table. In fact, you could then turn strict checking into an after-the-fact item: creating the visitor passes in a QObject, then after the visit you check whether the QObject has been emptied. But that's not something that has to be solved for 2.9. > >> For what it's worth, however, I believe that even non-strict visits >> should detect unvisited list tails. > > Bit of an asymmetry. Not sure it matters, because to not visit list > tails, you have to put in some effort. > > -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
