RFC re winmm/time.c

Jeremy White jwhite at codeweavers.com
Sun Oct 10 14:06:40 CDT 2004

Hi Eric,

Thanks for responding.

>  From an implementation point of view, there's something wrong with it. 
> The time returned from TIME_MMSysTimeCallback (time to wait for next 
> timer to elapse) only takes into account the timers which existed when 
> the function is entered, not the ones which could have been created or 
> deleted while processing the callbacks.

I think this is safe; the wakeup event would be signalled if any events
were added while we were in this function, so we should immediately
return to that function.

> Another point, with your proposal, we could use the fact that the global 
> time no longer needs to be maintained, hence the worker thread can be 
> destroyed when no more timers exist.

I hadn't considered that; I had thought that having the thread
sleeping for INFINITE was a pretty nice improvement, but your
proposal is arguably even better.  The only case where it would
be a poor choice is a situation where events are being created
and destroyed continually.

But maybe we should start with this patch (and deal with the bugs
it introduces <grin>), and I can mark a FIXME to make
that improvement in the future.



More information about the wine-devel mailing list