[PATCH v1 6/6] tests/i386/test-i386: try and correct constrain 16 bit call (WIP)

["Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>]

Newer compilers complain about non-matching constraints:

  test-i386.c:1393:5: error: asm operand 2 probably doesn’t match constraints [-Werror]
   1393 |     asm volatile ("lcall %1, %2"
        |     ^~~

It seems the plain "i" immediate constraint is a little too lax here.
What we are actually dealing with is a 32 bit offset into a particular
segment. I think that is "Ts" (Address operand without segment
register).

[AJB: however this just seems to push it a bit further down the road:

test-i386.c:1393: Error: operand type mismatch for `lcall'

Inline ASM constraints are hard :-/]

Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
---
 tests/tcg/i386/test-i386.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tests/tcg/i386/test-i386.c b/tests/tcg/i386/test-i386.c
index 18d5609665..6d8aeccfb5 100644
--- a/tests/tcg/i386/test-i386.c
+++ b/tests/tcg/i386/test-i386.c
@@ -1392,15 +1392,15 @@ void test_code16(void)
     /* call the first function */
     asm volatile ("lcall %1, %2"
                   : "=a" (res)
-                  : "i" (MK_SEL(1)), "i" (&code16_func1): "memory", "cc");
+                  : "i" (MK_SEL(1)), "Ts" (&code16_func1): "memory", "cc");
     printf("func1() = 0x%08x\n", res);
     asm volatile ("lcall %2, %3"
                   : "=a" (res), "=c" (res2)
-                  : "i" (MK_SEL(1)), "i" (&code16_func2): "memory", "cc");
+                  : "i" (MK_SEL(1)), "Ts" (&code16_func2): "memory", "cc");
     printf("func2() = 0x%08x spdec=%d\n", res, res2);
     asm volatile ("lcall %1, %2"
                   : "=a" (res)
-                  : "i" (MK_SEL(1)), "i" (&code16_func3): "memory", "cc");
+                  : "i" (MK_SEL(1)), "Ts" (&code16_func3): "memory", "cc");
     printf("func3() = 0x%08x\n", res);
 }
 #endif
-- 
2.20.1