Re: [HACKERS] s_lock.h line 178

> 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;