X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org To: cygwin@cygwin.com From: mwoehlke Subject: Re: Problems with setup colors in snapshot Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 19:02:57 -0500 Lines: 44 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060420) In-Reply-To: X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com mwoehlke wrote: > Igor Peshansky wrote: >> On Mon, 22 May 2006, mwoehlke wrote: >>> A while back I posted about the colors in setup.exe. I noticed that the >>> text background color is fixed but that there is still a problem with >>> the tree structure; specifically, the clickable [+] and [-] icons are, >>> on my colors, effectively invisible. On some other color schemes I >>> tried, they *are* 100% invisible. >> >> Yes, this is most likely reproducible (as the foreground color of those >> icons is *always* black. >> >>> 3: If I pick, e.g. (64,0,128) for my window background color, the >>> tree becomes the *exact* same color as the background. >> >> Hmm, weird -- for me the foreground color of the icons is *always* >> black. > > Unfortunately, a: this isn't the case for me, and b: as you've so > astutely pointed out, if it was that would still be problematic :-). (In > reality, I've learned that *someone* is always going to exercise poor > design and so I usually pick a background light enough for black to be > at least marginally visible against it). > >> Theoretically, it should be a simple matter of using MaskBlt instead of >> BitBlt with the properly configured pen color and the properly set up >> mask. In practice, making this work on all platforms (including Win9x), >> correctly, and with the minimum amount of code changes is a big pain. > > I'm using Win2k3 R2 x64 and (see attached screenshot) I can assure you > it doesn't work on my system. Maybe my OS is the problem? (Hmm... yup, > the problem has to be Windows ;-).) > > Also, I'd test on my XP system but it is consistently dereferencing a > NULL :-(. (On W2k3 R2 it did that *once* and has since run just fine.) After tweaking and rebuilding 2.529 from the tarball, I can confirm, for whatever it's worth, that I see the same behavior on XP. Maybe now that I have the sources built I'll be more likely to submit a patch. :-) Time permitting, of course. -- Matthew All of my signatures are 100% original. Including this one. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/