On 3/30/06, Alexandre Julliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Troy Rollo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The brute-force approach of changing this to the following makes the
> > application work, but gives rise to some pack_message FIXMEs (for WM_NCPAINT
> > and WM_ERASEBKGND), and since this is an
Troy Rollo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem is fixed (so the app now works) although I am still getting the
> pack_message FIXMEs - it is possible though that this is a different problem
> that was masked by the earlier one. I will investigate further.
Yes, the pack_message thing is a
On Friday 31 March 2006 02:41, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> I committed a few fixes that should help, please give it a try.
The problem is fixed (so the app now works) although I am still getting the
pack_message FIXMEs - it is possible though that this is a different problem
that was masked by
Troy Rollo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The brute-force approach of changing this to the following makes the
> application work, but gives rise to some pack_message FIXMEs (for WM_NCPAINT
> and WM_ERASEBKGND), and since this is an extremely sensitive piece of code to
> change I thought it best
On 3/29/06, Troy Rollo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The recent changes to the desktop have revealed a problem with recursive
> processing of X messages. The problem started to manifest with commit
> 1a4f6e579b6aab685fae2e649fd5accee7ec0b4f (7th March). A symptom is a stack
> that looks like this:
>
The recent changes to the desktop have revealed a problem with recursive
processing of X messages. The problem started to manifest with commit
1a4f6e579b6aab685fae2e649fd5accee7ec0b4f (7th March). A symptom is a stack
that looks like this:
WINPROC_wrapper
...
