Hm. If I don't specify '|lparam', won't it avoid checking the lParam entirely?
It's not that I'm working around the lParam check, it's that I specifically _want_ the lParam check to ensure its value equals hWnd. That's the behavior for which I'm hoping to prevent a regression. Without the patch, Wine sets the lParam to the wrong value.
So, should I keep it how it is then minus the comment syntax? Or perhaps move the sequence into being simple variable within the function as setting a value in a potentially shared struct is a bit awkward?
On 11/23/2015 03:10 PM, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Christopher Thielen cthielen@gmail.com wrote:
The behavior being tested is for a WM_CAPTURECHANGED message which has its lParam set to the first parameter from the SetCapture() calls (the main hWnd in this case).
In order to get the sequence to pass, I need to set lParam as the hWnd's value is unpredictable.
Can you recommend another way to go about this?
Just don't specify '|lparam'.