On 9/29/21 12:59, Eric Pouech wrote:
> Le 29/09/2021 à 17:57, Zebediah Figura (she/her) a écrit :
>> On 9/29/21 02:43, Eric Pouech wrote:
>>> Le 28/09/2021 à 20:01, Zebediah Figura (she/her) a écrit :
>>>> 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
I don't get warnings with that diff either. What version of GCC do you have?