Re: [HACKERS] S_LOCK() change produces error...

>
> On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > >
> > >
> > > I installed some patches today for the univel port, and one of the changes
> > > did the following to include/storage/s_lock.h:
> > >
> > > 302c318
> > > < __asm__("xchgb %0,%1": "=q"(_res), "=m"(*lock):"0"(0x1)); \
> > > ---
> > > > __asm__("lock xchgb %0,%1": "=q"(_res), "=m"(*lock):"0"(0x1)); \
> > >
> >
> > I guess this is a multiple cpu modifier for asm, and most people don't
> > run multiple cpus. I guess our gcc's call it an error, rather than
> > ignore it. I think we need an OS-specific ifdef there. We can't have
> > Univel changing the normal i386 stuff that works so well now.
>
> Actually, I think that the patch was meant to improve...if you look at the
> code, he put all the Univel stuff inside of its own #ifdef...see around
> line 297 in include/storage/s_lock.h and you'll see what I mean.
>
> He seems to have only added a 'lock' to the beginning of the __asm__,
> which is what is breaking things under FreeBSD, but unless it affects every
> other port, I'm loath to remove it without just throwing in a FreeBSD #ifdef
> in there...

I will check when I apply my next patch. I am hesitant to cvsup at this
time if the code is broken.

--
Bruce Momjian
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us