http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10343
Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID |
--- Comment #10 from Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com 2007-11-13 05:05:34 --- (In reply to comment #8)
Dmitry, if you read my note with a some degree of politeness, you'd find out that I said Windows assigns safer IDs to timers, than "one" that often used for IDs created by users. Right, it's not documented that Windows takes precautions and what does it change? It's just yet another poorly documented feature of Windows and if you don't try to follow it, you'd possibly create compatibility problems for the other applications as well. I thought that you'd care of this. And from the perspectives said above, would you please point me out onto where the test case is invalid?
The test case is perfectly valid, it's not me who calls it invalid.
As Anastasius explained we at least need to change the timer id allocation algorithm to make it go backwards.