Corinna Vinschen writes: > Ok, I took a look. Basically it looks fine, but it seems there's a bug > in terms of sig_fail.
Oh yes, that's buggered up. > You're giving sig_fail as argument to fetch_remote_ini. Inside > fetch_remote_ini, you're setting sig_fail, but you never test it. > However, since sig_fail has been given to fetch_remote_ini by value, > not by reference, the caller will never see the change to sig_fail. Yes, that should have been a bool&. > So in the expression > > if (!ini_file && !sig_fail) > > sig_fail is always false. > > I'm also wondering of the new logic at this point. If you fix the above > call by value of sig_fail, the new logic will only continue if there > was no sig test fail. It will not continue if there was no ini file, > as it did before. Why? When I pulled the two conditions into one, I just didn't get the logic right. I'll rework that later. Regards, Achim. -- +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ SD adaptation for Waldorf rackAttack V1.04R1: http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSDada