Re: [try3]: user32/tests: add tests for WM_SETICON - what's wrong?

Hi, I've asked before: What's wrong with them? Maybe, unnecessary PeekMessage in tests??? http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2007-January/035044.html http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2007-January/035043.html Please, answer! Do not ignore! -- Kirill

Re: [try3]: user32/tests: add tests for WM_SETICON - what's wrong?

Anything wrong with them again? http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2007-January/035044.html http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2007-January/035043.html Thanks, Kirill

Re: [try2] user32/tests: add tests for WM_SETICON - what's wrong?

"Kirill K. Smirnov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Traditional questions from rejected patch-sender: > > 1) What's wrong with the patch: > http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2007-January/034949.html > 2) What can be done to improve it? The test fails on Windows XP: msg.c:3944: Test fail

[try2] user32/tests: add tests for WM_SETICON - what's wrong?

Hi, Traditional questions from rejected patch-sender: 1) What's wrong with the patch: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2007-January/034949.html 2) What can be done to improve it? -- Kirill

Re: user32/tests: add tests for WM_SETICON

"Kirill K. Smirnov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +/* Message sequences for WM_SETICON */ +hwnd = CreateWindowExA(0, "TestWindowClass", NULL, + WS_OVERLAPPEDWINDOW, + CW_USEDEFAULT, CW_USEDEFAULT, 300, 300, 0, + N