Re: WaitForMultipleObjects loops forever if passed an array of size zero

[Alexandre Julliard]

Troy Rollo  writes:
> It now occurs to me that this fix not entirely right either - or at least it 
> doesn't avoid creating another bug, since Sleep(INFINITE) is valid, and Sleep 
> goes through WaitForMultipleObjectsEx.
>
> However, since WaitForMultipleObjectsEx(0, NULL, FALSE, INFINITE, FALSE) 
> returns an error on Win2k, this use of WaitForMultipleObjectsEx to implement 
> Sleep must be wrong.

You are right, our implementation of Sleep is broken. I'll fix that.