On Sun, 6 Sep 2026 20:40:59 +0000 "Jose Fernandez (Anthropic)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Will add one in v2, thanks. > > Today arm64 returns 0 only for a mis-aligned patch site. But patch 4 of > this series replaces that check with two: the two NOPs to patch must be > there, and the ops pointer must fit in the prefix NOPs (which also > catches a mis-aligned site). How about this to cover the series? > > /* The architecture may return 0 to reject a patch site */ That comment is fine. I didn't really like the specifying of mis-alignment as it did appear to be too specific, and could change. -- Steve > > Happy to name the mis-aligned case in patch 1 and extend the comment > in patch 4 if you prefer that.
