Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!microsoft!t-benw
From: t-benw@microsoft.UUCP (Benjamin Waldmin)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Register saving conventions
Message-ID: <1674@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 2 Aug 88 17:21:13 GMT
References: <664@iraun1.ira.uka.de> <10050005@eecs.nwu.edu>
Reply-To: t-benw@microsoft.uucp (Benjamin Waldman)
Organization: Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA
Lines: 27

In article <10050005@eecs.nwu.edu> bob@eecs.nwu.edu (Bob Hablutzel) writes:
>Are you attempting to make tail patches? (A tail patch is one which 
>processes AFTER the ROM code). MultiFinder is making tail patches very
>hard to impliment, as the MultiFinder code often checks to see where
>it comes from, or it can depend on the ROM code leaving certain registers
>in specific states. I think Apple is quietly saying that tail patches
>are no longer valid, although I have not heard this verbatum from Apple.
>
In the Macintosh supplement in the August Byte, there's an article by
Phil Goldman, one of the authors of MultiFinder.  Goldman writes
"... it's illegal for an application to have a patch that does post-
processing--that is, that has code after the call to the old routine."

Ben Waldman
Software Design Engineer,
Microsoft Corp.

uw-beaver!microsoft!t-benw

Disclaimer 1:  No, I usually don't read Byte; I find it useless.  But
when I saw the words Macintosh Supplement on the cover I though I'd
give it a try.  Unfortunately, there's a disgusting article on animation,
where the author directly calls the Color Manager rather than working
through the Palette Manager. Shame !!!

Disclaimer 2:  My thoughts, opinions, and writings are purely my own
and are no related in any way to those of my employer.