Re: Tuple and changes for m68k with -malign-int
On Tue, 20 May 2025, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-05-20 at 21:03 +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
> > Yes, and then you declined to send your patch upstream, and a Debian
> > developer picked up my patch instead.
> >
> > When I worked on this, I discovered that your patch was inadequate,
> > that the problem was not the m68k ABI, and that you threw away a good
> > opportunity to improve the upstream project.
>
> And, did your patch get merged upstream yet?
>
> https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/127546
>
> It's still open which proves my point. And that's just one of many
> projects that are affected by the alignment issue as you can see from my
> list.
>
You've never reviewed the patch. What is wrong with it?
> > > > I know they were ported to a variety of ABIs with a variety of alignment
> > > > rules, that do not guarantee natural alignment of integer types.
> > >
> > > I see. Since you haven't tested it, it means the bug doesn't exist.
> >
> > No it means I never had a need for those languages on m68k. Does a bug
> > exist if no-one executes it? How many actual users are there for the
> > Debian/m68k JVM, besides Debian porters?
>
> How many actual users in production exist on Debian/m68k except hobbyists?
>
> You're using an argument that works for both sides.
>
No, my argument was that you have failed to identify those packages that
actually need porting.
> > >
> > > Gotcha.
> > >
> >
> > I assumed the bug may exist, but when I asked about it, you evaded the
> > question.
>
> I have created a wiki page for this exact matter:
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/M68k/Alignment
>
All you have said is that upstream codebases refuse to improve their code
and that's why an ABI break is needed. This makes no sense at all.
Reply to: