In a message dated 7/19/2005 7:29:11 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>I assumed, but did not state, that the person doing the patching >had already checked the cross-reference list to see if the half >word in the literal pool was used anywhere else where such a patch >would have an adverse affect. And if he overlooks one? Overlooking a reference to an instruction about to be changed with a patch will cause adverse affects regardless of how elegant or atrocious the original instruction was. Similarly overlooking a reference to a source code instruction about to be reassembled may also cause adverse affects. Clearly the problem here is the overlooking rather than the level of atrocity with which the source instruction was coded. > Please explain the details of why this is high risk behavior. Because people err. ... [1] Taking more time than a reassembly would. Clearly the best solution is to change the logic in the source code and reassemble, which is why I added this phrase which you may have overlooked[1,2]: "... but could not easily change the source code and reassemble". There are times when a patch is necessitated because there is no source code. Bill Fairchild [1] And if he overlooks one? [2] Because people err. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
