Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
On Thu, 2025-06-12 at 18:19 +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2025, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 20:16 -0700, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> > >
> > > Fixing pthreads would probably go a long way. That's where we lost
> > > about half of our performance.
> >
> > This may be accurate, but I'm again not sure how this is related to the
> > discussion we're having.
> >
>
> It's related because such changes could impact all of the C libraries and
> compiler toolchains that you wish to port. So it's an example of a burden
> created by package archive growth.
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-68k/2025/06/msg00048.html
m68k with 4 bytes alignment works fine on NetBSD.
> It's also related because such an enhancement may involve an ABI break.
> That's why I mentioned threading a week ago.
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-68k/2025/06/msg00018.html
Which I don't care about because the current ABI is broken.
> > Finn accuses me that I deliberately slow down Linux on m68k when all I
> > do is continue to maintain vanilla Debian on m68k.
>
> Citation needed. What I have said is, Debian is bloated (in part) because
> of its dependency graph e.g. the cmake dep on Qt, which you defended.
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-68k/2025/05/msg00038.html
I'm not defending that system. I'm saying that I am not going to roll a custom
distribution of Debian because a few people on this list refuse to accept the
fact that the Linux/m68k ABI is broken and violates the official AT&T spec turning
the maintenance of this port more and more into a burden.
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer
`. `' Physicist
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Reply to: