The following example shows the problem,  it's a stripped down version of winsamp.d.  If its compiled without -release it works fine,  it you compile it with -release the value hWnd is 0 after the CreateWindow call.  This works fine on 106,  but fails on 108/109.  What's going on?


import std.c.windows.windows;

extern(Windows)
int WindowProc(HWND hWnd, uint uMsg, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam)
{
	switch (uMsg)
	{
	    case WM_DESTROY:
		PostQuitMessage(0);
		break;
	    default:
		break;
	}
	return DefWindowProcA(hWnd, uMsg, wParam, lParam);
}


extern (Windows) int WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow)
{
	
    try
    {
	WNDCLASS wc;
	wc.lpszClassName = "DWndClass";
	wc.style = CS_OWNDC | CS_HREDRAW | CS_VREDRAW;
	wc.lpfnWndProc = &WindowProc;
	wc.hInstance = hInstance;
	wc.hIcon = LoadIconA(cast(HINSTANCE) null, IDI_APPLICATION);
	wc.hCursor = LoadCursorA(cast(HINSTANCE) null, IDC_CROSS);
	wc.hbrBackground = cast(HBRUSH) (COLOR_WINDOW + 1);
	wc.lpszMenuName = null;
	wc.cbClsExtra = wc.cbWndExtra = 0;
	assert(RegisterClassA(&wc));
	
	HWND hWnd = CreateWindowA("DWndClass", "Just a window", WS_THICKFRAME |
		WS_MAXIMIZEBOX | WS_MINIMIZEBOX | WS_SYSMENU | WS_VISIBLE,
		CW_USEDEFAULT, CW_USEDEFAULT, 400, 300, HWND_DESKTOP,
		cast(HMENU) null, hInstance, null);
	assert(hWnd);

	MSG msg;
	while (GetMessageA(&msg, cast(HWND) null, 0, 0))
	{
		TranslateMessage(&msg);
		DispatchMessageA(&msg);
	}

    }

    catch (Object o)
    {

	return 1;
    }

    return 0;
}

In article <couv61$20pu$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Russell Wilkins says...
>
>The following example shows the problem,  it's a stripped down version of winsamp.d.  If its compiled without -release it works fine,  it you compile it with -release the value hWnd is 0 after the CreateWindow call.  This works fine on 106,  but fails on 108/109.  What's going on?

Could it be the issue discussed here? http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/2358

I would think that this
assert(RegisterClassA(&wc));

would turn into this:
RegisterClassA(&wc);

but maybe it turns into this:
;

In any case, it has to be a compiler bug.

>	assert(RegisterClassA(&wc));

jcc7

J C Calvarese wrote:
> In article <couv61$20pu$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Russell Wilkins says...
> 
>>The following example shows the problem,  it's a stripped down version of winsamp.d.  If its compiled without -release it works fine,  it you compile it with -release the value hWnd is 0 after the CreateWindow call.  This works fine on 106,  but fails on 108/109.  What's going on?
> 
> 
> Could it be the issue discussed here?
> http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/2358
> 
> I would think that this
> assert(RegisterClassA(&wc));
> 
> would turn into this:
> RegisterClassA(&wc);
> 
> but maybe it turns into this:
> ;
> 
> In any case, it has to be a compiler bug.
> 
> 
>>	assert(RegisterClassA(&wc));
> 
> 
> jcc7

You are correct,  removing the assert around the RegisterClass fixes the problem.

Russell Wilkins wrote:
> The following example shows the problem,  it's a stripped down version of winsamp.d.  If its compiled without -release it works fine,  it you compile it with -release the value hWnd is 0 after the CreateWindow call.  This works fine on 106,  but fails on 108/109.  What's going on?

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/2271 ***

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cp1dn5$241c$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Russell Wilkins wrote:
> > The following example shows the problem,  it's a stripped down version of winsamp.d.  If its compiled without -release it works fine,  it you compile it with -release the value hWnd is 0 after the CreateWindow call.  This works fine on 106,  but fails on 108/109.  What's going on?
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/2271 ***

It's also been fixed now.