From owner-freebsd-current Sat Nov 10 16:24:58 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29F4437B41C; Sat, 10 Nov 2001 16:24:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from bde.zeta.org.au (bde.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.102]) by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA16359; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 11:24:53 +1100 Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 11:23:43 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: To: John Baldwin Cc: , Jim Bryant Subject: Re: kernel won't build - atomic.c/atomic.h errors... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20011111111640.M22418-100000@delplex.bde.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, John Baldwin wrote: > On 08-Nov-01 Bruce Evans wrote: > > The i386 still uses archaic constraints for some > > input-output operands ("0" for the first operand). These never worked > > right and if fact don't actually work for compiling this file without > > optimization. > > Hmm, would you prefer this diff then, I've had it floating around for a while > now but wasn't sure it was right: Yes, it is right provided all the operand renumbering is right. I suppose it can't be checked simply by comparing all objects, because it sometimes changes the register allocation? There are a couple more "0"s in atomic_cmpset_int(), and many more in other files (even in cpufunc.h). Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message