On 2004-06-10 0:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Martin Pitt <martin(at)piware(dot)de> writes:
> > Recently PostgreSQL did not build any more on the Debian ia64 and m68k buil=
> > dds:
> Just to clarify --- what you're reporting is that Debian changed their
> compiler to break our code, right? Because this asm has been the same
> for quite awhile ...
I know, but it would be nice to be able to compile PostgreSQL with
recent compilers. This was not meant as a bug report, just a question
to people who know more about assembler than me. Our porters proposed
the new solution with "m"(*lock), but I wanted to get some more
> > 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.
> We will need to find out whether this syntax also works with older
> gccs, and if not, what hoops we must leap through to determine which
> syntax to use.
Concerning Debian it is not really required that it works also with
old compilers (well, 2.95 would be nice, but it is not necessary). It
is perfectly okay for me to patch this only for the Debian version.
So does this statement make sense?
Thanks in advance!
Martin Pitt Debian GNU/Linux Developer
In response to
pgsql-ports by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2004-06-10 10:04:20|
|Subject: Re: Build failure on m68k and ia64: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm'|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-06-10 04:37:07|
|Subject: Re: Build failure on m68k and ia64: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm' |