On 9/29/21 02:43, Eric Pouech wrote:

Le 28/09/2021 ������ 20:01, Zebediah Figura (she/her) a ������crit������:

On 9/28/21 11:49, Eric Pouech wrote:

Signed-off-by: Eric Pouech <eric.pouech@gmail.com>

---
������ dlls/msvcrt/math.c |������������������ 2 +-
������ 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/dlls/msvcrt/math.c b/dlls/msvcrt/math.c
index 7f59a4d20d4..ad632e70548 100644
--- a/dlls/msvcrt/math.c
+++ b/dlls/msvcrt/math.c
@@ -5643,7 +5643,7 @@ unsigned int CDECL _control87(unsigned int newval, unsigned int mask)
������ {
������������������������������ unsigned int flags = 0;
������ #ifdef __i386__
-������������������ unsigned int sse2_cw;
+������������������ unsigned int sse2_cw = 0;
������ ������������������������������ __control87_2( newval, mask, &flags, &sse2_cw );

Wouldn't it be better to check for failure from __control87_2()?

unfortunately, gcc11 still complains when checking for failure of _control87_2()

gcc doesn't seem to be smart enough to infer that ss2_cw is always when _control87_2() returns 1

That doesn't match what I have here. With the attached patch gcc 11.1 doesn't complain.

what I tried is:

diff --git a/dlls/msvcrt/math.c b/dlls/msvcrt/math.c
index 7f59a4d20d4..4560040eb9f 100644
--- a/dlls/msvcrt/math.c
+++ b/dlls/msvcrt/math.c
@@ -5645,10 +5645,11 @@ unsigned int CDECL _control87(unsigned int newval, unsigned int mask)
������#ifdef __i386__
������������������������ unsigned int sse2_cw;
������
-������������������ __control87_2( newval, mask, &flags, &sse2_cw );
-
-������������������ if ((flags ^ sse2_cw) & (_MCW_EM | _MCW_RC)) flags |= _EM_AMBIGUOUS;
-������������������ flags |= sse2_cw;
+������������������ if (__control87_2( newval, mask, &flags, &sse2_cw ))
+������������������ {
+������������������������������������������ if ((flags ^ sse2_cw) & (_MCW_EM | _MCW_RC)) flags |= _EM_AMBIGUOUS;
+������������������������������������������ flags |= sse2_cw;
+������������������ }
������#else
������������������������ flags = newval;
������������������������ _setfp(&flags, mask, NULL, 0);

which still gives me the warnings, when compiling the 32bit part of a wow64 conf

(but not on a pure 32bit conf)

your solution doesn't generate warnings on neither of the two

so will need further investigation on:

- discrepency wrt wow

- why the difference between the two patches

A+