In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 07/18/2005
at 01:35 AM, Bill Fairchild <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I don't understand this reply. What is the risk?
The obvious one; collateral damage.
>I assumed, but did not state, that the person doing the patching
>had already checked the cross-reference list to see if the half
>word in the literal pool was used anywhere else where such a patch
>would have an adverse affect.
And if he overlooks one?
>TDIITD [1]. Please explain the details of why this is high risk
>behavior.
Because people err. Theoretically you can[1] check meticulously, but
in practice I've seen that technique blow up in people's faces, and
there is essentially no plus side to compensate for the risk.
[1] Taking more time than a reassembly would.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
