Re: affs

[Ken T. <ke...@we...>]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Roman Zippel wrote:

> Hi,

> Yes, they are and I just commited some more changes, but there is still a 
> bit to do. OFS is probably still completly broken and FFS writes stop
> somewhere at 4.5MB (the extended block caching is broken).
> It would be great if someone could test the current stuff a bit, but
> please do any tests only on a seperate partition or only with a backup. I
> don't have disksalv or something like that, so I can't really test if the
> fs structure is still consistent.

I just updated 2.3 and attempted to compile, I see :

gcc  blah -c -o signal.o signal.c
signal.c: In function `do_sigaction':
signal.c:921: fixed or forbidden register 68 (0) was spilled for class
CR0_REGS.
This may be due to a compiler bug or to impossible asm
statements or clauses.
make[2]: *** [signal.o] Error 1

Ken.