On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 14:00 -0600, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Is there actually an app that depends on this?
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9369
This bug requires the function to fail, but you are probably right that
no-one checks the error code. I will change the patch/test to be less
p
> Simply use wine_server_call instead of wine_server_call_err.
That is my point. That will not work. The existing the error codes
*should* be translated, but this new one should not. So if i use
wine_server_call i would have to filter which ones to translate
manually.
It would also give me the p
Peter Dons Tychsen writes:
>> Simply use wine_server_call instead of wine_server_call_err.
>
> That is my point. That will not work. The existing the error codes
> *should* be translated, but this new one should not. So if i use
> wine_server_call i would have to filter which ones to translate
>
Peter Dons Tychsen writes:
> Hello A.
>
> I was afraid you were going to say that! :-)
>
> My initial change actually did that, but then i ran into the problem
> that i need the request to fail, but not set an error-code. I could
> push/pop the current error code in user32 but that seemed a bit u
Hello A.
I was afraid you were going to say that! :-)
My initial change actually did that, but then i ran into the problem
that i need the request to fail, but not set an error-code. I could
push/pop the current error code in user32 but that seemed a bit ugly. I
could also single out that error c
Peter Dons Tychsen writes:
> @@ -85,6 +85,17 @@ BOOL set_capture_window( HWND hwnd, UINT gui_flags, HWND
> *prev_ret )
> HWND previous = 0;
> UINT flags = 0;
> BOOL ret;
> +GUITHREADINFO info;
> +if(!GetGUIThreadInfo(GetCurrentThreadId(), &info))
> +{
> +return
