On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 21:55:58 +0200 Wolfram Sang wsa@the-dreams.de wrote:
This is correct but missing that the above 'return ret' is broken, too. ret is initialized but 0 in that case.
Nice catch! Oh well, given enough eyeballs, ...
I don't think ret is initialized, reg is, not ret .
It is initialized for the broken 'return ret' *above* the one which gets rightfully fixed in this patch.
Agreed, 2 broken cases and this is only fixing the second one. I'm expecting a v2 of this patch which fixes them both, so won't apply this v1.
Thanks,
Jonathan