On 12 April 2013 17:00, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12 2013, Aaron Carroll wrote:
>> tuff
>> > should be basic enough that it isn't a lot of trouble to carry it. At
>> > least when we figure out why the Android NDK doesn't like the current
>> > restraints :-)
>>
>> Digging around the GCC headers seems to have helped. If you change
>> the constraint on ebx to:
>> : "=a" (*eax), "=r" (*ebx), "=c" (*ecx), "=d" (*edx)
>> then it builds.
>
> But it doesn't work, we lose the output :-)
Ahh, I missed some important stuff. The ASM from cpuid.h looks like
this on my Android/x86 GCC:
#define __cpuid(level, a, b, c, d) \
__asm__ ("xchg{l}\t{%%}ebx, %1\n\t" \
"cpuid\n\t" \
"xchg{l}\t{%%}ebx, %1\n\t" \
: "=a" (a), "=r" (b), "=c" (c), "=d" (d) \
: "0" (level))
Hopefully someone who knows what they're doing can turn that into an fio fix :)
>> The relevant comment from cpuid.h:
>> /* %ebx may be the PIC register. */
>> which is ifdef'd on __PIC__
>>
>> Dunno what that means, but it builds with that, plus a very small
>> Android-specific fix. Both in attached patch.
>
> Patch is garbled?
Ok, so gmail sucks for dev work. Sorry. The Android bit follows inline.
diff --git a/os/os-android.h b/os/os-android.h
index b844982..df22333 100644
--- a/os/os-android.h
+++ b/os/os-android.h
@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
#include <sched.h>
#include <linux/unistd.h>
#include <linux/major.h>
+#include <asm/byteorder.h>
#include "binject.h"
#include "../file.h"
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
