On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 21:55:58 +0200 Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
