Build failure on m68k and ia64: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm'
От
Martin Pitt
Тема
Build failure on m68k and ia64: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm'
Дата
Msg-id
20040607233741.GA12284@donald.intranet.fbn-dd.de
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Build failure on m68k and ia64: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm' Martin Pitt <martin@piware.de>
Re: Build failure on m68k and ia64: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm' Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Build failure on m68k and ia64: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm' Martin Pitt <martin@piware.de>
Re: Build failure on m68k and ia64: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm' Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: Build failure on m68k and ia64: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm' Martin Pitt <martin@piware.de>
Re: Build failure on m68k and ia64: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm' Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Build failure on m68k and ia64: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm' Martin Pitt <martin@piware.de>
Re: Build failure on m68k and ia64: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm' Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Build failure on m68k and ia64: inconsistent operand Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
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@piware.de mpitt@debian.org
http://www.piware.de http://www.debian.org
В списке pgsql-ports по дате отправления
От: Tom Lane
Дата: