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

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

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-ports(at)postgresql(dot)org, martin(at)piware(dot)de
Subject: Re: Build failure on m68k and ia64: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm'
Date: 2004-06-10 10:04:20
Message-ID: 200406101204.20605.peter_e@gmx.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-ports
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.  As it is, they 
are treating it as invalid syntax, which is really a bad move on their 
part.


In response to

Responses

pgsql-ports by date

Next:From: Martin PittDate: 2004-06-10 10:26:19
Subject: Re: Build failure on m68k and ia64: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm'
Previous:From: Martin PittDate: 2004-06-10 09:50:54
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