July 23, 2008
1:28 p.m.
"Rob Shearman" <robertshearman(a)gmail.com> writes:
2008/7/23 Dan Hipschman <dsh(a)linux.ucla.edu>:
This isn't the most efficient implementation, but it works, and it should not be difficult to tweak. Hence, I'd rather get this version in and add the optimizations one at a time, in little patches. "Get it working first..."
Yes, I think you're right. I don't think it will be too hard to change the architecture of this to that of my suggestions.
Actually I think the code will be much simpler with a sorted timer list, so I'd suggest to start with that. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org