> 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;
