Re: user32: Make message test pass cleanly under XP SP2

[Alexandre Julliard]

Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)codeweavers.com> writes:
> /* posted message */
>      PostMessageA( hwnd, WM_CHAR, dbch[0], 0 );
> +    msg.message = 0xdeadbeef;
>      ok( !PeekMessageW( &msg, hwnd, 0, 0, PM_REMOVE ), "got message %x\n", msg.message );
>      PostMessageA( hwnd, WM_CHAR, dbch[1], 0 );
>      ok( PeekMessageW( &msg, hwnd, 0, 0, PM_REMOVE ), "no message\n" );
>      ok( msg.message == WM_CHAR, "unexpected message %x\n", msg.message );
>      ok( msg.wParam == wch, "bad wparam %lx/%x\n", msg.wParam, wch );
> +    msg.message = 0xdeadbeef;
>      ok( !PeekMessageW( &msg, hwnd, 0, 0, PM_REMOVE ), "got message %x\n", msg.message );
>
> /* posted thread message */
>      PostThreadMessageA( GetCurrentThreadId(), WM_CHAR, dbch[0], 0 );
> +    msg.message = 0xdeadbeef;
>      ok( !PeekMessageW( &msg, hwnd, 0, 0, PM_REMOVE ), "got message %x\n", msg.message );
>      PostMessageA( hwnd, WM_CHAR, dbch[1], 0 );
>      ok( PeekMessageW( &msg, hwnd, 0, 0, PM_REMOVE ), "no message\n" );
>      ok( msg.message == WM_CHAR, "unexpected message %x\n", msg.message );
>      ok( msg.wParam == wch, "bad wparam %lx/%x\n", msg.wParam, wch );
> +    msg.message = 0xdeadbeef;
>      ok( !PeekMessageW( &msg, hwnd, 0, 0, PM_REMOVE ), "got message %x\n", msg.message );

I'm not sure I see the point of that change, since the message is not
tested when PeekMessage fails.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org

user32: Make message test pass cleanly under XP SP2

[Dmitry Timoshkov]

"Alexandre Julliard" <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote:
> Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)codeweavers.com> writes:
> > /* posted message */
> >      PostMessageA( hwnd, WM_CHAR, dbch[0], 0 );
> > +    msg.message = 0xdeadbeef;
> >      ok( !PeekMessageW( &msg, hwnd, 0, 0, PM_REMOVE ), "got message %x\n", msg.message );
> >      PostMessageA( hwnd, WM_CHAR, dbch[1], 0 );
> >      ok( PeekMessageW( &msg, hwnd, 0, 0, PM_REMOVE ), "no message\n" );
> >      ok( msg.message == WM_CHAR, "unexpected message %x\n", msg.message );
> >      ok( msg.wParam == wch, "bad wparam %lx/%x\n", msg.wParam, wch );
> > +    msg.message = 0xdeadbeef;
> >      ok( !PeekMessageW( &msg, hwnd, 0, 0, PM_REMOVE ), "got message %x\n", msg.message );
> >
> > /* posted thread message */
> >      PostThreadMessageA( GetCurrentThreadId(), WM_CHAR, dbch[0], 0 );
> > +    msg.message = 0xdeadbeef;
> >      ok( !PeekMessageW( &msg, hwnd, 0, 0, PM_REMOVE ), "got message %x\n", msg.message );
> >      PostMessageA( hwnd, WM_CHAR, dbch[1], 0 );
> >      ok( PeekMessageW( &msg, hwnd, 0, 0, PM_REMOVE ), "no message\n" );
> >      ok( msg.message == WM_CHAR, "unexpected message %x\n", msg.message );
> >      ok( msg.wParam == wch, "bad wparam %lx/%x\n", msg.wParam, wch );
> > +    msg.message = 0xdeadbeef;
> >      ok( !PeekMessageW( &msg, hwnd, 0, 0, PM_REMOVE ), "got message %x\n", msg.message );
>
> I'm not sure I see the point of that change, since the message is not
> tested when PeekMessage fails.

I added that changes because Microsoft compiler from latest Vista SDK
complains that variables might be used without being initialized.

-- 
Dmitry.

user32: Make message test pass cleanly under XP SP2

[Alexandre Julliard]

"Dmitry Timoshkov" <dmitry(a)codeweavers.com> writes:
> I added that changes because Microsoft compiler from latest Vista SDK
> complains that variables might be used without being initialized.

It sounds like that compiler is on crack. I don't think we want to
sprinkle assignments all over the place just to work around that.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org