Return result of boost::apply_visitor
Not returning a value at the end of a non-void function is undefined behaviour.
Given that this managed to pass our full test suite, I guess that GCC looks for
un-returned values at the end of a function and uses them as the return value,
if the keyword is missing. Clang OTOH complains, which is how we spotted this:
https://ci.z.cash/#/builders/16/builds/282
In order to speed up block propagation, it is possible for some blocks
to arrive out of order due to propagation delays combined with 2 or
more blocks mined very quickly.
Additionally futurestamping blocks allows a high hash rate miner to
produce blocks that would be valid after a passage of time.
Previously such blocks triggered an extreme response that banned the
peer that broadcast it. Since these are temporary issues, if the block
is still valid when it is within the allowed timestamp window, this
update will process it normally.
Not returning a value at the end of a non-void function is undefined behaviour.
Given that this managed to pass our full test suite, I guess that GCC looks for
un-returned values at the end of a function and uses them as the return value,
if the keyword is missing. Clang OTOH complains, which is how we spotted this:
https://ci.z.cash/#/builders/16/builds/282
