🚀 go-pugleaf

>> Oh bugger.  So I have to cut a tape whenever I want to send someone a fix?
>> With Patch I can fix things immediately over the phone.  I think it's a
>> foolish decision to leave Patch out.  It's going to make my job a lot
>> harder.
>
>I doubt it. Given all the work that a RISC compiler does on your source
>(even, I suspect, if the source is MACRO32), I think that trying to
>implemement a nontrivial patch to the code that doesn't have unexpected
>side-effects is probably a lot more work than recompiling!

I doubt it.  I've already worked with miles and miles of machine listings
from both the GEM C compiler and the MACRO32 compiler.  I've even found
several compiler optimizer bugs.  I know what I'm doing.

Besides, a lot of patches are trivial, like constant changes.  And
what if I want to patch some native M64 code?

>The only exception I can think of is patching the DATA sections in the
>image. But the current patch utility could do that, and I can't remember
>when I last wanted to use PATCH on data sections anyway!

So when is Digital going to fix Patch so that it works on already
loaded images?

-bruce