Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
On Fri, 2025-06-13 at 14:09 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> You mean Python is broken, as it makes assumptions that are not
> guaranteed by the C standard (oops, which one? ;-) ? ;-)
Not just Python but a lot of packages which I have listed here:
https://wiki.debian.org/M68k/Alignment
This does not even cover the transitive dependencies.
> Lots of older packages used to build fine on much more obscure systems
> than Linux/m68k. Unfortunately people stopped caring for anything
> not 64-bit little endian. Yes, I know saying that doesn't help...
Yes, *used* to work. But that's past tense.
> > What is your suggested alternative? Do you expect me to patch broken packages
> > into all eternity? If keeping 2 bytes alignment ABI is so important to so many
> > people, I would expect proponents to come up with solutions.
> >
> > So far, I haven't seen any. Just arguments why my approach is wrong.
>
> You are completely ignoring the last sentence I wrote...
Because I am *extremely* tired of people heckling this discussion without *helping* me.
I have had multiple moments where I thought to just throw this all into the bin, turn
off the buildds and deleting the m68k archives because it's really hurting my sanity.
I am fully aware that this change breaks the existing ABI. However, as I explained before,
changing the default alignment to 4 bytes is the *only* way to keep this port alive in the
long term and anyone who is interested in this port should either agree with me or present
a suitable alternative to me. The latter still has not happened yet.
Continuing discussion about possible performance hits like Eero or moving goal posts like
Finn is not going to address this problem. Rather, it's just making me feel worse and questioning
my life decisions.
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer
`. `' Physicist
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Reply to: