>Maybe. I'm not quite convinced of that yet - we can SleepEx with
>a very small timeout, no? There must be a few critical places the
>call could be made, which would in effect just delay delivery of
>the signal for a very short time to some convenient sequence point.
FWIW that method gets my vote - calling SleepEx(0) in some critical
places; I believe that will yield the CPU but not wait any time (so if
nothing else wants the CPU and there aren't any procedures that need
calling then it amounts to a no-op).
Using a driver to do this is killing an ant with a hammer, no matter
that we find the ant somewhat irritating.. :)
- Steve