On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 04:58:33PM +0400, Ivan Kokshaysky wrote:
> Yes, I can reproduce this with gcc-2.95.2 (compiles cleanly with 2.96).
> Looks like older gcc doesn't like when output operand 5 listed
> also as input. Hmm.
> Simple swapping operands 4 and 5 makes gcc happy.
I've got a patch
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 08:36:58PM +0400, Ivan Kokshaysky wrote:
> FWIW, here are __xchg_u8 and __xchg_u16 for Alpha.
I like it.
r~
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 12:50:38AM +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> Yeah on most architectures you cant do an xchg of a 16 bit quantity.
> Rusty has a patch:
>
...
FWIW, here are __xchg_u8 and __xchg_u16 for Alpha.
Ivan.
--- 2.4.0t8p6/include/asm-alpha/system.hThu Sep 7 19:01:46 2000
On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> Yeah on most architectures you cant do an xchg of a 16 bit quantity.
> Rusty has a patch:
That's what I thought as well, at least for Alpha's case. Thanks...will
try both patches and let you all know how it goes...
C
-
To unsubscribe from this
> Great. I'll apply the patch and see where the next breakage is :-P I
> believe there was a problem in the netfilter code
> (net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_REJECT.c, lines 67-68) with the selection of
> which xchg() to use (either __xchg_u32() or __xchg_u64()as detailed in
>
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Ivan Kokshaysky wrote:
> Yes, I can reproduce this with gcc-2.95.2 (compiles cleanly with 2.96).
> Looks like older gcc doesn't like when output operand 5 listed
> also as input. Hmm.
> Simple swapping operands 4 and 5 makes gcc happy.
Great. I'll apply the patch and see
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 04:19:25AM -0400, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> xor.c: In function `xor_block_alpha':
> xor.c:1791: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm'
> xor.c: In function `xor_block_alpha_prefetch':
> xor.c:2213: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm'
>
Yes, I can
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 04:19:25AM -0400, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
xor.c: In function `xor_block_alpha':
xor.c:1791: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm'
xor.c: In function `xor_block_alpha_prefetch':
xor.c:2213: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm'
Yes, I can
Great. I'll apply the patch and see where the next breakage is :-P I
believe there was a problem in the netfilter code
(net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_REJECT.c, lines 67-68) with the selection of
which xchg() to use (either __xchg_u32() or __xchg_u64()as detailed in
include/asm-alpha/system.h)
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 12:50:38AM +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote:
Yeah on most architectures you cant do an xchg of a 16 bit quantity.
Rusty has a patch:
...
FWIW, here are __xchg_u8 and __xchg_u16 for Alpha.
Ivan.
--- 2.4.0t8p6/include/asm-alpha/system.hThu Sep 7 19:01:46 2000
+++
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 08:36:58PM +0400, Ivan Kokshaysky wrote:
FWIW, here are __xchg_u8 and __xchg_u16 for Alpha.
I like it.
r~
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at
11 matches
Mail list logo
