From: | Martin Pitt <martin(at)piware(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-ports(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Build failure on m68k and ia64: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm' |
Date: | 2004-06-07 23:37:41 |
Message-ID: | 20040607233741.GA12284@donald.intranet.fbn-dd.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-ports |
Hi PostgreSQL developers!
Recently PostgreSQL did not build any more on the Debian ia64 and m68k buildds:
----------
m68k-linux-gcc -DCHECK_RLIMIT_NOFILE -fno-strict-aliasing -g -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -pipe -I../../../../src/include -D_GNU_SOURCE -I/usr/include/tcl8.4 -c -o xlog.o xlog.c
../../../../src/include/storage/s_lock.h: In function `tas':
../../../../src/include/storage/s_lock.h:292: error: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm'
make[5]: *** [xlog.o] Error 1
----------
The relevant code on m68K:
----------
__asm__ __volatile__(
" clrl %0 \n"
" tas %1 \n"
" sne %0 \n"
: "=d"(rv), "=m"(*lock)
: "1"(*lock)
: "cc");
----------
and on IA64:
----------
__asm__ __volatile__(
" xchg4 %0=%1,%2 \n"
: "=r"(ret), "=m"(*lock)
: "r"(1), "1"(*lock)
: "memory");
----------
A Debian porter suggested that "1"(*lock) is an obsolete syntax and
should be replaced by "m"(*lock) in both cases; however, I would like
to get a second opinion about this.
Does this make sense? Would you consider doing this in the next
release?
Thanks and have a nice day!
Martin
--
Martin Pitt Debian GNU/Linux Developer
martin(at)piware(dot)de mpitt(at)debian(dot)org
http://www.piware.de http://www.debian.org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | tgl | 2004-06-08 00:45:01 | Your bill. |
Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2004-06-07 04:23:30 | Re: Concurrent access related issue. |