Le 06/01/2017 à 23:06, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Le 18/12/2016 à 04:21, Richard Heck a écrit :
JMarc, I think the attached patches take care of this. I broke it up so
it was more obvious what was happening. The first patch takes care of
the for-loop issue, and the others re-organize a bit to make the logic
clearer.
My question is: did you work out why this for() loop is here if it does
not have any effect?
Interestingly enough, the problem was already present in the original
commit c5e56fea.
JMarc
