From: Jacob Fugal <lukfugl@...>
Date: 2006-04-26T01:03:34+09:00
Subject: Re: possible defect in array.c

On 4/25/06, Pat Eyler <rubypate@gmail.com> wrote:
> This one may be a false positive, I'm not sure.  If it is, I'll happily mark
> it that way at the coverity site.

This one looks like a false positive to me. Up to the switch on line
2114, [beg] is never touched. In each of the three delineated cases
for the switch, [beg] is set. (In case 2, if [rb_range_beg_len
succeeds], I *assume* [beg] is set by the function; if it fails, we
fall through to case 3 which does set [beg].) The only way [beg] could
be unset at line 2133 is if [argc] were less than 1 or greater than 3.
That, I hope, is gauranteed by the input to the function (along with
the hack on line 2109 for blocks).

Jacob Fugal