Re: [HACKERS] s_lock.h line 178

Applied manually. Patch was wrapped.

> > 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;
>
>
>
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026