Willy Tarreau wrote: > I've done it too, but unfortunately, I discovered that it does not build > with gcc-2.95 anymore, while 3.3 is fine : > > cyclades.c: In function `cyy_interrupt': > /usr/src/git/linux-2.4/include/asm/bitops.h:130: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm' > cyclades.c: In function `cyz_handle_rx': > /usr/src/git/linux-2.4/include/asm/bitops.h:130: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm' > > 127 __asm__ __volatile__( LOCK_PREFIX > 128 "btsl %2,%1\n\tsbbl %0,%0" > 129 :"=r" (oldbit),"+m" (ADDR) > 130 :"Ir" (nr) : "memory"); > > > I don't know what the right solution should be. I'm not fond of #ifdefs, > and I'm embarrassed to know that gcc can do all sorts of nasty things due > to a wrong clobbering :-/ > > If you have any idea on the subject, I'm willing to try. What about #if __GNUC__ < 3 #define ADDR_DEPS "=m" #else #define ADDR_DEPS "+m" #endif __asm__ __volatile__( LOCK_PREFIX "btsl %2,%1\n\tsbbl %0,%0" :"=r" (oldbit),ADDR_DEPS (ADDR) :"Ir" (nr) : "memory"); or something similar? Would keep the number of #ifs low. Jan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 2.4.x: i386/x86_64 bitops clobberings
- From: Willy Tarreau <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.4.x: i386/x86_64 bitops clobberings
- References:
- 2.4.x: i386/x86_64 bitops clobberings
- From: Jan Kiszka <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.4.x: i386/x86_64 bitops clobberings
- From: Willy Tarreau <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.4.x: i386/x86_64 bitops clobberings
- From: Jan Kiszka <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.4.x: i386/x86_64 bitops clobberings
- From: Willy Tarreau <[email protected]>
- 2.4.x: i386/x86_64 bitops clobberings
- Prev by Date: Re: sysfs & ALSA card
- Next by Date: Re: drivers/char/specialix.c: broken baud conversion
- Previous by thread: Re: 2.4.x: i386/x86_64 bitops clobberings
- Next by thread: Re: 2.4.x: i386/x86_64 bitops clobberings
- Index(es):
 |