"Dmitry Timoshkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Peter Riocreux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > You have to write a test case and add it to existing ones in
>> > dlls/user/tests/win.c to confirm that the patch is correct.
>>
>> Is something that creates a tree of windows and then makes a pare
"Peter Riocreux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You have to write a test case and add it to existing ones in
> > dlls/user/tests/win.c to confirm that the patch is correct.
>
> Is something that creates a tree of windows and then makes a parent
> invisible and checks the visibility state of the c
"Dmitry Timoshkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You have to write a test case and add it to existing ones in
> dlls/user/tests/win.c to confirm that the patch is correct.
Is something that creates a tree of windows and then makes a parent
invisible and checks the visibility state of the children
"Peter Riocreux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The comment above SWP_DoOwnedPopups in dlls/x11drv/winpos.c suggests
> that the only thing missing is what I *might* have fixed here,
> therefore the patch also removes the FIXME and the WARN. It compiles
> and doesn't break any behaviour I can test, b
Peter Riocreux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a lot of WARNs from this function so I thought I would have a
> shufty at it to see if it was easy to fix.
>
> The FIXME above it is written so as to suggest that it is a matter of
> mere keystrokes to fix it up, or weeks of work, depending on y
I have a lot of WARNs from this function so I thought I would have a
shufty at it to see if it was easy to fix.
The FIXME above it is written so as to suggest that it is a matter of
mere keystrokes to fix it up, or weeks of work, depending on your
frame of mind when you read it.
Still being a be
