Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>
> Both you and Finn still seem to miss the point that the current 2 bytes
> alignment path is a dead end and neither you nor Finn have made any
> substantial contributions to keep this path alive.
>
> If you want to keep this path, roll back your sleeves and get to work.
>
I made the offer to help last year and then followed through. And you know
it, because you commented on the bug report [1]. Yet you subsequently
claimed, falsely and repeatedly, that I've done nothing.
Of course, you have to do this in order to try to discredit. Also, your
stance obliges you to ignore the work of others, because that work
demonstrates that the bugs in question are not really related to alignment
or ABI in the first place. They are straight-forward bad code, like
pointer abuse in Python [1] or over-strict assertions in Linux [2].
Apparently you don't have time to improve all the upstream codebases that
you want to port -- though you do have time for sniping at that effort [1]
[2].
Want interests you is a zero-effort port, with no guarantee of ABI
stability and no history. You want 100% package archive coverage, with no
regard for the applicability of those packages to Motorola or NXP
hardware.
So I fail to see how your plans would serve Debian or the wider Linux/m68k
community. But perhaps that will become clear once you "roll back your
sleeves" and send patches.
[1]
https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/127545
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1105110
[2]
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-m68k/CAMuHMdWvmwvtA3F3vuYxiDf94Mn2o7TTQ9G-erv-ZfNVjMZrRg@mail.gmail.com/
Reply to: