[PATCH] user32: Allow WM_CAPTURECHANGE indicating SetCapture() parameter.

[Christopher Thielen]

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 at 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'.
>