Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!kth!draken!tut!santra!kampi!jmunkki
From: jmunkki@kampi.hut.fi (Juri Munkki)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Re: Legal Tail Patches
Summary: I keep on saying yes, they keep on telling me NO.
Message-ID: <20086@santra.UUCP>
Date: 2 Mar 89 22:54:23 GMT
References: <1285@ccnysci.UUCP> <10050084@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Sender: news@santra.UUCP
Reply-To: jmunkki@kampi.UUCP (Juri Munkki)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Lines: 18

In article <10050084@accuvax.nwu.edu> bob@accuvax.nwu.edu (Bob Hablutzel) writes:
>> Oh, but it does work! The code that doesn't get called is only the come-from
>> patch. This code only patches ROM code anyway. 
>
>Wrong. Come-from patches can patch RAM code also. Trust me.
>
Oh? Why would they do that? (Is it the MultiFinder patching?)

What I should have said is that they patch known code. It doesn't matter
if a random program bypasses the come-from code. The only occasion that
I can think of is where the come-from patch tries to see if it is called
from a vague area in memory (like the system or application heap), but I
don't think this is done...

_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
|     Juri Munkki jmunkki@hut.fi  jmunkki@fingate.bitnet        I Want   Ne   |
|     Helsinki University of Technology Computing Centre        My Own   XT   |
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^