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
A+