On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 5:25 AM Jaroslav Kysela <perex@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Dne 27. 12. 20 v 9:37 Takashi Iwai napsal(a): > > > > The current code is obviously wrong and the suggested fix goes even to > > a wronger direction :) The function should return num instead. > > > > I wonder how this did't hit any problem, so far. Maybe 0x prefix was > > rarely used, fortunately. > > It's a bit recent code. I fixed the return value now. It's for \xFF not for > 0xFF prefix. Thank you for your investigation, Alex. Thank you for fixing this properly! -Alex
