Previously would break out of the loop that builds setConnected at the first manual/inbound connection. Replacing break with continue considers the rest of the nodes.
...
At least, that's what I think this does... Not sure what's an easy way to test this, and my C++ is definitely Rusty. :)
Previously would break out of the loop that builds setConnected at the
first manual/inbound connection. Replacing break with continue considers
the rest of the nodes.
The break; breaks out of the switch statement, not out of the loop. I believe changing it to continue; in this case is equivalent, because the end of the loop coincides with the end of the switch statement.
1664 | @@ -1665,7 +1665,7 @@ void CConnman::ThreadOpenConnections(const std::vector<std::string> connect) 1665 | switch (pnode->m_conn_type) { 1666 | case ConnectionType::INBOUND: 1667 | case ConnectionType::MANUAL: 1668 | - break; 1669 | + continue;
Unless I'm confused, break here only acts within the scope of the switch statement; it doesn't break out of the for-loop.
The
break;breaks out of theswitchstatement, not out of the loop. I believe changing it tocontinue;in this case is equivalent, because the end of the loop coincides with the end of theswitchstatement.
Heh, brain fart! Like I said, I haven't actually written C++ code in years; I only work with Rust and Python these days.