On 01/20/2010 02:39 AM, Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
Hey Paul,
Thanks for cleaning up the crashing 9x test-case so fast.
Well it still crashes but at least it runs now on Win95.
This patch has introduced test failures on NT4 and below (tested locally):
http://test.winehq.org/data/tests/user3
Hey Paul,
Thanks for cleaning up the crashing 9x test-case so fast.
> This patch has introduced test failures on NT4 and below (tested locally):
>
> http://test.winehq.org/data/tests/user32:win.html
Sorry for that.
> The callback is entered several times on NT4 (only once on XP) so it
> seems.
On 01/11/2010 09:47 PM, Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
Try 3 of this patch:
- Moved check to server.
- Removed handling of error code translation after input from AJ.
Thanks,
/pedro
Hi Peter,
This patch has introduced test failures on NT4 and below (tested locally):
http://test.winehq.org/data
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
On 01/07/2010 03:33 AM, Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
+/* check that SetCapture fails for another window and that it does
not touch the error code */
+set_cap_wnd = SetCapture(hWnd);
+err = GetLastError();
+ok(!set_cap_wnd, "ReleaseCapture should have
10 matches
Mail list logo
