Published on: 2013-10-04T03:23:49+00:00
The author of the context raises a concern about not being able to access https://bitcointalk.org. They then analyze the code for CDB:Rewrite() in the files db.h and db.cpp. It is observed that while the function is declared as 'bool static' in db.h, it is not declared as such in db.cpp. The author is unsure if this inconsistency is a problem or intentional.The focus then shifts to the usage of CDB:Rewrite(). It is found that the function is only called in wallet.cpp, specifically in CWallet::EncryptWallet(), but its return value is ignored. This raises the question of whether this is a deliberate design choice or an unnoticed bug. Although the function mostly succeeds when called, the author considers it a minor bug since the return value is disregarded over 99% of the time.The discussion continues with the observation that CWallet::EncryptWallet() is invoked by AskPassphraseDialog::accept() and WalletModel::setWalletEncrypted(), both of which are interested in the return value of CWallet::EncryptWallet(). The author speculates that this may be related to a previous issue with wallet encryption on bitcoin-qt 0.8.1.In conclusion, the author suggests exploring more "suspicious" code in their integrated development environment (IDE) during quiet moments. They find amusement in attempting to infer the meaning and intent behind the use of 'return 0' and 'return 1'.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T05:57:52.749930+00:00