On Tue, Oct 07, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > Well, the patch is doing a kind of lazy initialisation, since it falls > back to the global vector if the task one is 0. We could possibly set > the task vector at that point, but it's not clear to me that it would > be necessary.
Now that you mention it, the patch indeed does lazy intialization. I really should try to avoid doing anything that requires thinking when I'm tired... So, patch looks correct, after all and I don't think setting task vectors would be useful, either. -- Jukka Heinonen <http://www.iki.fi/jhei/>
