http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12349
--- Comment #11 from Jörg Höhle hoehle@users.sourceforge.net 2008-05-19 11:04:48 --- Rethinking comment #4, I found good reasons to prefer for (i = 3; i < len; i += 4) over for (i = 0; i < len-3; i += 4) because the former works with both signed and unsigned integer types. The latter only works reliably with signed integers. Luckily, len and i are signed (INT), so it's ok here.
With unsigned integers, imagine len were 2, len-3 (=0xffffffff) would defeat the end test and loop a billion times.
Alas, the patch has not appeared in 0.9.60, .61 nor in 1.0rc1, despite posting twice to wine-patches. I'll have to find out what's "Not Obviously Correct".