Fix nodiscard warnings in sync client #407
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
In later C++ versions, std::async is marked nodiscard. See https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue2856. The code is correct in that it is properly blocking for the result, but it will now warn since this is considered "not the way". Adding .wait() to the end of the calls, which explicitly waits on the future, should be the correct fix. Signed-off-by: Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org>
|
(ECA should now be signed) |
|
Oh, sorry to take so long on this. I haven't updated this library in ages. But, yes, this looks like a bad bug. I'll get it in for the next release. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In later C++ versions, std::async is marked nodiscard. See https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue2856.
The code is correct in that it is properly blocking for the result, but it will now warn since this is considered "not the way".
Adding .wait() to the end of the calls, which explicitly waits on the future, should be the correct fix.
Fixes issue #340