http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22580
--- Comment #34 from joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se 2010-05-10 04:59:18 --- (In reply to comment #33)
(In reply to comment #32)
OK, apps written on <= XP isn't supported? That is effectively what you are saying.
That's not what I've said. There is no applications not working due to this bug. There is a win9x DLL. That effectively makes this bug invalid, since we can't fix the bugs in Windows DLLs, or add win9x specific behaviour to make one broken win9x DLL work although built-in DLL which works just fine.
It is not broken. It is using the function according to the spec.
quirks only if there is an application that depends on them. In your case that's not even an application, but a native Windows DLL which depends on some old/broken/undocumented behaviour.
It is not that old (<=XP) and not broken and not undocmented. Haven't you read the URL:s I posted or the test in comment #19?
How do you know that the native Windows DLL is broken and not wine?
Your test case shows that.
No, it shows that <= XP behaves according to the spec.
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?
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.