On September 22, 2002 10:22 am, Rein Klazes wrote:
> Too early conclusion. At least this one is still needed or not fixed
> correctly.
Right! :) But this is more what we want there:
--- listview.c.org 2002-09-21 17:20:11.0 +0200
+++ listview.c 2002-09-22 16:06:23.0 +0200
@@
On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 19:53:56 +0200, you wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 11:12:52 -0400, you wrote:
>
> > > +ZeroMemory(&item, sizeof(item));
> >
> > We shouldn't need these. In fact, they just hide bugs, and most
> > of them are superfluous anyways. The first hunk is a good find
> > though, I'
On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 11:12:52 -0400, you wrote:
> > +ZeroMemory(&item, sizeof(item));
>
> We shouldn't need these. In fact, they just hide bugs, and most
> of them are superfluous anyways. The first hunk is a good find
> though, I've integrated it in my patch.
>
> Alexandre, please use this
On September 21, 2002 02:46 am, Rein Klazes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With these fixes the original reason to debug disappeared as well ;-)
>
> dlls/comctl32/: listview.c
> Fix some crashes running with --debugmsg +listview
> +ZeroMemory(&item, sizeof(item));
We shouldn't need these. In f
