From: | Andreas Zeugswetter <andreas(dot)zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "'Jon Buller'" <jonb(at)metronet(dot)com> |
Cc: | "'hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] s_lock.h line 178 |
Date: | 1998-10-28 08:11:45 |
Message-ID: | 01BE0253.58F6E830@zeugswettera.user.lan.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Except that now causes an illegal instruction fault, since the
> assembler thinks the second instruction is some of the args to
> the first. Will '\n\' work instead of '\' as I modified the
> patch below?
Yes, sorry, therefore only this will work.
*** s_lock.h.ori Tue Oct 13 14:21:55 1998
--- s_lock.h Tue Oct 27 18:03:57
1998
***************
*** 175,181 ****
tas(volatile slock_t *lock)
{
register _res;
! __asm__("sbitb 0, %0
sfsd %1"
: "=m"(*lock),
"=r"(_res));
return (int) _res;
--- 175,181 ----
tas(volatile
slock_t *lock)
{
register _res;
! __asm__("sbitb 0, %0 \n\
sfsd %1"
: "=m"(*lock), "=r"(_res));
return (int) _res;
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas Zeugswetter | 1998-10-28 09:54:04 | AIX 4.2.1 regression test |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-10-28 05:17:54 | Open 6.4 items |