Re: rebar issues

[Matt Chapman]

OK, I managed to fix the problem by doing this:

Index: dlls/comctl32/rebar.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/wine/wine/dlls/comctl32/rebar.c,v
retrieving revision 1.83
diff -u -r1.83 rebar.c
--- dlls/comctl32/rebar.c	9 Feb 2004 22:07:43 -0000	1.83
+++ dlls/comctl32/rebar.c	21 Feb 2004 07:03:15 -0000
@@ -1497,10 +1497,7 @@

/* separator from previous band */
    cxsep = (cntonrow == 0) ? 0 : SEP_WIDTH;
-
-	/* Header: includes gripper, text, image */
-	cx = lpBand->cxHeader;
-	if (lpBand->fStyle & RBBS_FIXEDSIZE) cx = lpBand->lcx;
+	cx = lpBand->lcx;

if (infoPtr->dwStyle & CCS_VERT)
        dobreak = (y + cx + cxsep > adjcy);

However, I'm not sure I understand the original code (i.e. initial cx in
REBAR_Layout = header only for the !RBBS_FIXED_SIZE case), and hence
don't know whether this will break something else.  Can anyone comment?

Matt

On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 11:40:00AM +1100, Matt Chapman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm having some rebar issues with a particular application (Canon
> File Viewer Utility).
>
> The rebar is meant to look something like:
>
> |0---------------            |1------|2---|
> |3------|4------|5------|6------          |
> (and there are some extra hidden bands)
>
> Instead in wine the result is:
>
> |0---------------                       |||
> |3------                               ||||
>
> with the remaining bands having 0-size child windows (and there's
> important functionality in those bands).  The minimum sizes
> provided by the application seem to be right.  The application then
> requests maximisation of 0,3,4,5,6 in that order, which isn't
> implemented in WINE so that should not do anything, but I'd still
> expect the minimum sizes to be honoured.
>
> The output of wine --debugmsg +rebar is at:
>
> http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~matthewc/rebar.gz (62K)
>
> I'm currently trying to understand the source, but if anyone is
> familiar with the rebar and has any suggestions that would be
> much appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt