Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Build failure on m68k and ia64: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm'

From: Martin Pitt <martin(at)piware(dot)de>
To: pgsql-ports(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Build failure on m68k and ia64: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm'
Date: 2004-06-10 10:26:19
Message-ID: 20040610102618.GB2905@donald.intranet.fbn-dd.de (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-ports
Hi again!

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is obsolete already for a long time and became invalid just recently.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
different" before.

Thanks,

Martin

-- 
Martin Pitt                 Debian GNU/Linux Developer
martin(at)piware(dot)de                      mpitt(at)debian(dot)org
http://www.piware.de             http://www.debian.org

In response to

pgsql-ports by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-06-10 19:15:31
Subject: Re: Build failure on m68k and ia64: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm'
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2004-06-10 10:04:20
Subject: Re: Build failure on m68k and ia64: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm'

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group