Hmm, come to think of it, that was probably not the DO_HASHMEM macro but some other code. Details are vague at this time but I think the uninitialized bytes didn't matter as long as they remained the same for the lifetime of that struct.
The DO_HASHMEM implementation lacks comments so I cannot tell if it's taking care of data at the start of the loop in a special way and therefore adjusts the counters correspondingly.
/ Jonas Walldén
Previous text:
2003-10-02 17:59: Subject: valgrind
Wouldn't that be almost as bad, since the hash is not a hash but a random value. Since I don't know exactly what DO_HASHMEM is supposed to do, and how its arguments relates I just guessed that the increment of "a" was not considered in the loops in DO_IF_ELSE_UNALIGNED_MEMORY, where uninitialized memory is affecting "ret".
/ Martin Nilsson (saturator)