You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Describe the bug
The below example code passes 3 doubles and one int as params to the FUN_0040bd20. The two middle params are read from the same double-array. But while one of the params
is properly passed 1:1, the other is first artificially cut up into words and int sections that are then reassembled using CONCAT without any actual need for those operations.
The decompiled code here suggests complexity in a place where there is actually none. Also it is inconsistent that the two doubles that originate from the same array are treated so differently.
Describe the bug
The below example code passes 3 doubles and one int as params to the FUN_0040bd20. The two middle params are read from the same double-array. But while one of the params
is properly passed 1:1, the other is first artificially cut up into words and int sections that are then reassembled using CONCAT without any actual need for those operations.
as far as I can tell the straight forward decompilation of that code should have read:
The decompiled code here suggests complexity in a place where there is actually none. Also it is inconsistent that the two doubles that originate from the same array are treated so differently.
Here the respective ASM code:
Expected behavior
The same 1:1 translation already correctly used for the param_2[5] should also be used for the param_2[4].
Environment (please complete the following information):
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: