Adam Martinson wrote:
> (We should not be calling SetWindowPos() in UpdateLayeredWindowIndirect() at
> all.)
> Fixes bug 26924.
Much better now, thanks.
--
Dmitry.
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=16845
Your paranoid android
Adam Martinson wrote:
> The whole point of the tests I wrote was to show that
> UpdateLayeredWindowIndirect() *doesn't* generate window messages, at
> least not as far as I've seen. Is there a better way to test that?
> Wouldn't these tests fail if it did?
A message test could help to prove
On 02/05/2012 09:46 PM, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Adam Martinson wrote:
(We should not be calling SetWindowPos() in UpdateLayeredWindowIndirect() at
all.)
Fixes bug 26924.
That's not what I was asking about (a bunch of message tests with various
parameters). Your current version essentially te
Adam Martinson wrote:
> (We should not be calling SetWindowPos() in UpdateLayeredWindowIndirect() at
> all.)
> Fixes bug 26924.
That's not what I was asking about (a bunch of message tests with various
parameters). Your current version essentially tests nothing.
You should call UpdateLayeredWi
Adam Martinson wrote:
> +static HDC (WINAPI *pGetWindowDC)(HWND hWnd);
> +static int (WINAPI *pReleaseDC)(HWND hWnd,HDC hDC);
There is no need to dynamically import these APIs, they are always available.
> +static DWORD WINAPI test_ulw_thread(void *data)
> +{
> +struct test_ulw_tdata *tdata
Adam Martinson wrote:
> Fixes bug 26924.
Please add the tests.
--
Dmitry.
Adam Martinson wrote:
> Fixes bug 26924.
This needs the tests.
--
Dmitry.
