Content deleted Content added
Guy Harris (talk | contribs) →TODO: Only if the code is generated at run time, and *that* only because the article discusses run-time generation even if existing code is *not* being modified, which I think is an error on the pare of the article. |
Guy Harris (talk | contribs) →Reentrant self-modifying code is possible: No existing code is being modified; it's just using a template in the process of generating fresh code. |
||
Line 71:
:Awww, go on, it's not all that bad. What is required is a calm attitude and appreciation of the actual environment. By using the stack working area, you ensure the avoidance of clashes in a quite proper way. This is what multi-stack designs are all about, and by writing in assembler (with proper commentary) you need not be constrained by the shibboleths of the prating orthodoxists of flabbier computer languages that constrain themselves and declare it good. In other words, I have misbehaved also, and declare it good. [[User:NickyMcLean|NickyMcLean]] ([[User talk:NickyMcLean|talk]]) 19:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
:I'd call that "run-time code generation", not "self-modifying code". Unfortunately, this page covers both topics; there is some overlap, in that code could generate other code at run time on top of existing code, which involves both run-time code generation and self-modifying code, but some self-modifying code doesn't involve particularly sophisticated code generation, and run-time code generation may generate ''new'' code into "empty" memory rather than replacing ''existing'' code. I'd classify what you did as the latter; the generated code is on the stack, the code you copied is just a template used by the code-generation process. [[User:Guy Harris|Guy Harris]] ([[User talk:Guy Harris|talk]]) 08:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
== JIT? ==
| |||