Re: Need some help debugging listview (Process Explorer)
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 <dimi(a)lattica.com> Lattica, Inc.
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.c and the output of a run with +listview?
Hi Dimi (again) I've been browsing msdn (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/shellcc/pla...) and also the code. I've changed LISTVIEW_GetSubItemRect a bit: /* On WinNT, a subitem of '0' calls LISTVIEW_GetItemRect */ if ((lprc->top == 0) || (lprc->top == 1)) return LISTVIEW_GetItemRect(infoPtr, nItem, lprc); 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. Any ideas about that? Paul.
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 <dimi(a)lattica.com> 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. So if the number of columns is (only) 1, a lprc->top of 1 means call LISTVIEW_GetItemRect. This smells like a test for the test-suite btw. Paul.
participants (2)
-
Dimi Paun -
Paul Vriens