http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22580
--- Comment #36 from joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se 2010-05-10 07:29:51 --- (In reply to comment #35)
(In reply to comment #34)
No, it shows that <= XP behaves according to the spec.
That also means that applications can't depend on this behaviour, since the behaviour is different across platforms.
Sure, for anything new one cannot rely on this behaviour.
How do you know there aren't more apps out there using this? There are a few 100% cpu usage bugs in bugzilla.
There could be a lot of reasons leading to 100% cpu usage, there is no need to speculate about that.
Sure, but just a few lines up you claimed there are no apps suffering from this bug. Care to expand on that?
That's simple, you haven't listed a single application affected by this bug.
That is hardly the same as your claim that no other apps is affected.
Any other bug with 100% cpu usage needs its own investigation.
yes, but this is one idea to test.
Bottom line is that MS changed the SPEC and impl. of this function in later Windows. I think the new SPEC is a bug as I can't think of a use case wanting this behavior as it just causes 100% CPU pegging.
Then this bug could be closed as a WONTFIX. You have found something that doesn't exist anymore.
Now you are back to not supporting apps written on <= XP. You cannot have it both ways.