Chen, Kenneth W schrieb:
True. However this isn't an argument against it. You might not even recognize that there is a bug. It might silently fail and maybe nobody would find it for years. With the break it would fail so you would be able to fix it immediately. And there is about no additional cost for using the break instruction.Christian Hildner wrote on Friday, February 24, 2006 2:08 AMself-modifing code isn't the straight forward way of programming. So wouldn't it be an idea to let the code crash instead of silently work with a potentially wrong number of registers here, if by any reason the patch mechanism doesn't work.This argument is very biased. A bug is a bug, regardless where the origin or through which mechanism. Programming error like wrongly initialize a value has the same severity compare to patching wrong code.
It is better because it would detect failure in the patch mechanism. Not more, not less.This argument is equally flawed. If you don't have any trust in patching mechanism in previous argument, why would you trust that patch out a break instruction is going to be any better?
Christian - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|