Robert Shearman wrote:
It looks much simpler now, but I don't understand why reversing the
direction of the stack should make any difference.
Because when the DefSubclassProc is called first time the stackpos
should be 0 and so if 0 is treated as topmost subclassed procedure in
the hiearchy t
Filip Navara wrote:
> Robert Shearman wrote:
>
> >Can you not just use stack->stacknum instead of 0 if the stack
> is inverted?
> >
> >
> Of course I can (now that I understand the code ;-).
>
> >I'm not arguing against it and I'm all for it if it makes it
> easier to code,
> >but I'm just trying t
Robert Shearman wrote:
Can you not just use stack->stacknum instead of 0 if the stack is inverted?
Of course I can (now that I understand the code ;-).
I'm not arguing against it and I'm all for it if it makes it easier to code,
but I'm just trying to see what stops you from using the same sta
Filip Navara wrote:
>
> Robert Shearman wrote:
>
> >It looks much simpler now, but I don't understand why reversing the
> >direction of the stack should make any difference.
> >
> Because when the DefSubclassProc is called first time the stackpos
> should be 0 and so if 0 is treated as topmost subc
Filip Navara wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> here is my proposed solution for crashes in COMCTL32 observed in
> specific situations while calling the window procedure subclassing
> functions. If there were removed all subclassed window procedures during
> the execution of SubclassWndProc there happened a crash,
