🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <715362736.403197.MILLER@TGV.COM>, MILLER@TGV.COM writes:
|>>> 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.

And he's modest too.

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

I don't think I'd want to subject my customers to the headache of trying
to manage patched images. DEC has been moving away from this as fast as
they can, and for good reason. It's much too easy for a customer to mis-
type a patch and really screw things up, and if you provide them with a
file to do it for them, why not provide them with an updated image?

|>>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?

If you get killed playing the PDP-11 version of Dungeon, it asks you if you
want to be reincarnated. If you say no, it indignantly protests, "What? Don't
you trust me? I once patched a running RSX system and it stayed up for 30
seconds!!"

--
Reece R. Pollack
Senior Software Engineer
The Wollongong Group, Inc.