Mark Dickinson <dicki...@gmail.com> added the comment: What's the purpose of old_i? It looks like it's never used for anything.
Other than than, the patch looks good to me. I'd guess that the "if (i < 0)" was simply optimized away. This isn't necessarily a compiler bug: if I understand correctly, a strict reading of the C standards says it's legitimate for a compiler to assume that code is written in such a way that signed-arithmetic overflow never happens, and gcc (for one) is known to take advantage of this. Also, it would be nice to cleanup the whitespace in this function while you're fixing it; at the moment it's showing me a mixture of tabs and spaces. ---------- nosy: +marketdickinson _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue4935> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
