If your hack/patch was in assembly, and you were tail patching, you could
always use a JMP and not have the extra stack frame.
I haven't written any hacks, but I have written several patches, so if it
isn't possible to apply this logic to hacks, please remove the word hack
from the first sentence, and then read it again :)
-J
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Jeff Ishaq wrote:
> Good question, Mike. I am just guessing here, I've never used Hacks. If
> they're just an organized kind of trap patch, this might hold true:
>
> Unless a Hack totally rewrites the trap it is patching, it has to call
> through to the original trap at some point. This would add an extra frame
> on the call stack since it now takes two function calls (the hack, and then
> the original function) instead of just the original function.
>
> -Jeff Ishaq
> The Windward Group
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 9:23 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Hacks - Do they reduce resources
>
>
> Do stacks reduce the amount of available resources like
> dynamic heap or stack space?
>
