Re: Problem report #60

[Stuart D. Herring]

> 8608    volatile Lisp_Object original_uppercase;
> 8609    volatile int original_uppercase_position = -1;
> [...]

original_uppercase_position remains -1 if original_uppercase is
uninitialized.

> At conditional (20): "dont_downcase_last != 0" taking true path
> At conditional (21): "(t - 1) == original_uppercase_position" taking true
> path
>
> 9481    if ((dont_downcase_last || first_binding >= nmaps)
> 9482        && t - 1 == original_uppercase_position)

Assuming that t!=0, t-1==original_uppercase_position implies that the o_u
variables were set.

> Event uninit_use: Using uninitialized value "original_uppercase"
> Also see events: [var_decl]
>
> 9483      keybuf[t - 1] = original_uppercase;
> 9484

So this is fine.  It'd be a big bug if t were 0, though, indexing at -1
like that.  Looking back up, it seems that if the while loop iterates even
once, t is > 0, but what if the while test fails the first time?  It looks
like t would be 0, and original_uppercase_position would still be -1, and
uninitialized data would be stored outside of an array.  Nasty, if it can
happen.  Otherwise, no bug.

Davis

-- 
This product is sold by volume, not by mass.  If it appears too dense or
too sparse, it is because mass-energy conversion has occurred during
shipping.