On 4 Feb 1998, Goran Thyni wrote:
> >include/config.h is unchanged
> >linking ./backend/port/tas/linux.s to backend/port/tas.s
> >configure: error: ./backend/port/tas/linux.s: File not found
>
> It does compile OK, since this file is not used anyway.
> But it would be confusing to Joe User if it is still there
> in the release. :-)
With the 1998-02-04 snapshot, I see the same problem that Göran sees
on NetBSD/sparc, where it looks for a tas/bsd.s to link to. It's
building here now, after I put an empty bsd.s where it wanted it and
reran configure -- I assume, from Göran's experience, that it's OK.
Actually, it would be good to get all tas() assembly implementations
out of include/storage/s_lock.h and into genuine .s files like this.
With the current way of doing it, the assembly routine has to be
"static", because s_lock.h is included several places, which is a bit
silly, but a worse consequence is that GCC will inline the assembly
code at optimization levels above 2, thus breaking it.. Is this what
you're doing, and the reason why the above problem occurred?
By the way, I'm running Monday's snapshot on NetBSD/vax now. Small
changes only: a couple of changed ifdefs, a couple of Makefile mods
and a tas() implementation in four lines of assembly. There are no
shared libraries, and no dynamic loading of object modules, but apart
from that, it works fine -- regression tests pass and fail in the same
pattern as on NetBSD/sparc, with the addition of dynload failures.
Is it too late to get the VAX stuff into 6.3? It's really not much,
and it would be kinda fun... :-)
-tih
--
Popularity is the hallmark of mediocrity. --Niles Crane, "Frasier"