On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Daniel Jeli������ski <djelinski1@gmail.com> wrote:
2013/9/30 Nikolay Sivov <bunglehead@gmail.com>
On 9/30/2013 00:51, Daniel Jeli������ski wrote:


+struct progress_list {
+ ������ ������const DWORD progress_retval_init; ������/* value to return from progress routine */
+ ������ ������const BOOL cancel_init; ������ ������ ������ ������ ������ ������/* value to set Cancel flag to */
+ ������ ������const DWORD progress_retval_end; ������ /* value to return from progress routine */
+ ������ ������const BOOL cancel_end; ������ ������ ������ ������ ������ ������ /* value to set Cancel flag to */
+ ������ ������const DWORD progress_count; ������ ������ ������ ������/* number of times progress is invoked */
+ ������ ������const BOOL copy_retval; ������ ������ ������ ������ ������ ������/* expected CopyFileEx result */
+ ������ ������const DWORD lastError; ������ ������ ������ ������ ������ ������ /* expected CopyFileEx error code */
+} ;
������I don't see a point making them 'const'.
I'm matching the formatting of existing code:
Also, what's the point of not making them const?

It's a little strange, stylewise. More consistent with C++ style would be to make the entire struct constant. But in a test, we often eschew with such things if they distract, and here I think they do.


+static DWORD WINAPI progress(LARGE_INTEGER TotalFileSize,
+ ������ ������ ������ ������LARGE_INTEGER TotalBytesTransferred,
+ ������ ������ ������ ������LARGE_INTEGER StreamSize,
+ ������ ������ ������ ������LARGE_INTEGER StreamBytesTransferred,
+ ������ ������ ������ ������DWORD dwStreamNumber,
+ ������ ������ ������ ������DWORD dwCallbackReason,
+ ������ ������ ������ ������HANDLE hSourceFile,
+ ������ ������ ������ ������HANDLE hDestinationFile,
+ ������ ������ ������ ������LPVOID lpData)
+{
+ ������ ������progressInvoked++;
Please pass all globals as context data with lpData, and please use 'void*' instead of LPVOID.
Good point about lpData. Still, does that make the patch invalid? Why didn't you mention that on the first review?
About LPVOID - I'm matching the headers:
http://source.winehq.org/source/include/winbase.h#L910
for the third patch:
http://source.winehq.org/source/include/winbase.h#L1018

LPVOID is just an uglier #define of void*. It's easier to read as void*, so please use that instead.
--Juan