[PATCH 1/6] dlls/msvcrt*: ensure variable sse2_cw is set for all code paths in _control87 (GCC11)

[Eric Pouech]

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 at 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+
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/attachments/20210929/549f1555/attachment-0001.htm>