El lun., 9 ago. 2021 12:40, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> escribió:
> Is it right, or is this its "looks like this is returning an error > indication" heuristic misfiring again ? > > My guess is the latter and it's caused by a mismatch > between the prototype of visit_optional() (returns a > status both by setting *present and in its return value) > and the Visitor::optional method (returns a status only > by setting *present, return void). I guess ideally we'd > standardize on whether these things were intended to return > a value or not. > Yeah, it's a false positive and the fix would be make Visitor::optional return a bool: if the visitor implements it, it's mandatory to overwrite *present, while non-input visitors (including the clone visitor) need not implement it at all and visit_optional will just return *present. Paolo > thanks > -- PMM > >
