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+