> now it's fine. lprc->top is one-based that lead me to think that we
> shouldn't use lprc->top as the subItem identifier.
It's documented as the subItem identifier. Why not use it?
--
Dimi Paun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Lattica, Inc.
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 10:23 -0500, Dimi Paun wrote:
> > now it's fine. lprc->top is one-based that lead me to think that we
> > shouldn't use lprc->top as the subItem identifier.
>
> It's documented as the subItem identifier. Why not use it?
>
Sorry, I meant, not to use it in this special case. S
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 08:22 -0500, Dimi Paun wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 08:26 +0100, Paul Vriens wrote:
> > Ok, there we go (i've started winedbg or I'm not getting to the wine
> > debugger, the bt is however the same as already printed):
>
> Good. Can you also send me your version of listview
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 08:26 +0100, Paul Vriens wrote:
> Ok, there we go (i've started winedbg or I'm not getting to the wine
> debugger, the bt is however the same as already printed):
Good. Can you also send me your version of listview.c
and the output of a run with +listview?
--
Dimi Paun <[EM
Hi,
I've managed to reliably crash Wine (CVS) when using Process Explorer
when using some listviews. If I start Process Explorer I have two
listviews one containing process-names and such, the other the dll's
belonging to that process. The 'names' one has 3 columns, the 'dll' one
has 5 (in my case
