Re: [HACKERS] s_lock.h line 178

Applied manually.  Patch was wrapped.


> > 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; 
> 
> 
> 
> 


--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026