On 2004-06-10 12:04 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Martin Pitt wrote:
> > 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.
> If it were obsolete syntax, then it would still work.
Sorry, I expressed myself incorrectly: according to the porters, this
is obsolete already for a long time and became invalid just recently.
> As it is, they are treating it as invalid syntax, which is really a
> bad move on their part.
Maybe, but at some time the gcc guys just have to get rid of old
syntax, they should not keep it forever. Anyway, somehow I have to
deal with this situation. Of course I can just do the patch, upload it
and see whether it works, but I would like it much more to get an
opinion "yes, this makes sense" or "no, this means something entirely
Martin Pitt Debian GNU/Linux Developer
In response to
pgsql-ports by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-06-10 19:15:31|
|Subject: Re: Build failure on m68k and ia64: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm' |
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2004-06-10 10:04:20|
|Subject: Re: Build failure on m68k and ia64: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm'|