Dmitry Timoshkov escribió:
"Alex Villacís Lasso" <[email protected]> wrote:
I recently filed http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18734 in
which I showed that DlgDirList is behaving incorrectly for 16-bit
apps. I also included a test program compiled with the Watcom C
compiler, as well as a patch. Then a comment appeared saying that it
should be possible to create a testcase for this API.
By creating a test I meant to have a test for 32-bit behaviour first,
then compare it with 16-bit one.
The 32-bit test is already in place in current git, and shows that the
behavior is compliant for 32-bit apps. It is at
dlls/user32/tests/listbox.c. Lines 1189 through 1219 show that
DDL_DRIVES alone implies DDL_EXCLUSIVE. Lines 1231 through 1263 show
that DDL_DRIVES|DDL_DIRECTORY does *not* imply DDL_EXCLUSIVE.
I am taking issue with lines 617 through 619 of dlls/user32/dialog16.c:
----------------
/**************************************************************************
* DlgDirList (USER.100)
*/
INT16 WINAPI DlgDirList16( HWND16 hDlg, LPSTR spec, INT16 idLBox,
INT16 idStatic, UINT16 attrib )
{
/* according to Win16 docs, DDL_DRIVES should make DDL_EXCLUSIVE
* be set automatically (this is different in Win32, and
* DIALOG_DlgDirList sends Win32 messages to the control,
* so do it here) */
if (attrib & DDL_DRIVES) attrib |= DDL_EXCLUSIVE;
return DlgDirListA( WIN_Handle32(hDlg), spec, idLBox, idStatic,
attrib );
}
----------------
If a 16-bit test were placed in the testsuite, it would show that the
current implementation (attrib & DDL_DRIVES) is incorrect, as
demonstrated by my test program. It should be attrib == DDL_DRIVES
instead. The program so far shows that the flag behavior is identical
for 16-bit and 32-bit calls.
--
perl -e '$x=2.3;printf("%.0f + %.0f = %.0f\n",$x,$x,$x+$x);'
