Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!ux1.lbl.gov!osborn
From: osborn@ux1.lbl.gov (James R Osborn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Toolbox Patching
Keywords: patch
Message-ID: <13665@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
Date: 29 May 91 19:06:13 GMT
References: <1991May28.163618.8353@crash.cts.com> <13613@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
Reply-To: osborn@ux1.lbl.gov (James R Osborn)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Lines: 39
X-Local-Date: Wed, 29 May 91 12:06:13 PDT

In article <13613@dog.ee.lbl.gov> osborn@ux1.lbl.gov (James R Osborn) writes:
>
>Just what exactly is the preferred method for applying a
>tail patch to a Toolbox routine?  I've read all sorts of

 ^^^^^^^^^^
OOOPS!  I was blowing it in that I meant to say "HEAD PATCH"!   

>Would my psuedo-code above then be preferred?  (Or am I totally
>or even partially blowing it?  8^)
>
>-- James
>


So am I to understand correctly that my example (according to Dave
Platt) is an ok example of a "TAIL PATCH"?!  OOOOPS!  So I did a tail
patch when I meant to do a head patch - OOOOPS!

Now I think I understand the difference.  So what I really want is to
have the original trap finish up:

Set the trap address to point at my patch
do my thing in my patch
jmp to the original trap so that IT returns to the original caller

Is this right?

Sorry for the blooper  8^(
-- James

.------------------------------.--------------------------------------.
| James R. Osborn              | It just goes to show you it's always |
| Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory | something.  Either it's baffling     |
| osborn@ux1.lbl.gov           | tech notes or your mac is smoking.   |
| (415) 548-8464               | It's always something...             |
'------------------------------'--------------------------------------'

NO wonder my mac is smoking ....