On 11-Nov-01 Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, John Baldwin wrote:
>> On 08-Nov-01 Bruce Evans wrote:
>> > The i386 <machine/atomic.h> still uses archaic constraints for some
>> > input-output operands ("0" for the first operand). These never worked
>> > right and if fact don't actually work for compiling this file without
>> > optimization.
>> Hmm, would you prefer this diff then, I've had it floating around for a
>> now but wasn't sure it was right:
> Yes, it is right provided all the operand renumbering is right. I suppose
> it can't be checked simply by comparing all objects, because it sometimes
> changes the register allocation?
Not sure, but I've actually been using it in a test tree since at least October
3. I think I had used it before then as well, so it is probably fine.
> There are a couple more "0"s in atomic_cmpset_int(), and many more in other
> files (even in cpufunc.h).
Hmm, I'll put these on my todo list then.
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message