Re: test case demonstrating PeekMessage give up timeslices

[Alexandre Julliard]

Felix Nawothnig  writes:
> But then that "extra" NtYieldExecution should not depend on
> !PM_NOYIELD since PM_NOYIELD doesn't have any effect on Windows, right?

It has an effect for Win16 apps, they need to release the Win16
lock. We could add a yield in the PM_NOYIELD case, but Win32 apps
won't use PM_NOYIELD anyway so I doubt it would make a difference, and
keeping it that way allows Winelib apps to tweak the behavior if
needed.
> > since a server call is much more expensive than a Windows system call.
>
> Would using shm fix that?

No, you don't want to put the message queue in shared memory, that's
not reliable.