Troy Rollo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It now occurs to me that this fix not entirely right either - or at least it > doesn't avoid creating another bug, since Sleep(INFINITE) is valid, and Sleep > goes through WaitForMultipleObjectsEx. > > However, since WaitForMultipleObjectsEx(0, NULL, FALSE, INFINITE, FALSE) > returns an error on Win2k, this use of WaitForMultipleObjectsEx to implement > Sleep must be wrong.
You are right, our implementation of Sleep is broken. I'll fix that. -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
