This is the mail archive of the java@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: libjava failed to build on Linux/x86

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Bryce McKinlay <bryce at waitaki dot otago dot ac dot nz>
Cc: "Boehm, Hans" <hans_boehm at hp dot com>, "'Per Bothner'" <per at bothner dot com>, "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, java at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:50:22 -0800
Subject: Re: libjava failed to build on Linux/x86
References: <40700B4C02ABD5119F000090278766443BEF30@hplex1.hpl.hp.com> <20020124170110.B10796@redhat.com> <3C50C47F.6050602@waitaki.otago.ac.nz>

On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 03:35:43PM +1300, Bryce McKinlay wrote:
> >The two are functionally identical, as "+" is expanded to "="/"0".
> >With memories, matching constraints are rarely needed or useful.
> 
> Strangely, one works while the other does not. The following will fail 
> without -O but works fine with -O:

Hmm.  It appears that we do take slightly more care with inout
operands than I previously thought.

>     * java/lang/natObject.cc (X86 compare_and_swap): Use +m constraint.

Yes, this is ok.


r~

References:
- RE: libjava failed to build on Linux/x86
  - From: Boehm, Hans
- Re: libjava failed to build on Linux/x86
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: libjava failed to build on Linux/x86
  - From: Bryce McKinlay

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]