From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3060F8460 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 09:16:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=130.133.4.66 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750238201; cv=none; b=KUjaO01Y0RUKifZRdpKrWlcmy3aTHRIpesAF5I8DUnKN1Kw/1O1bobEq0CeT1W11Y7oVqhlgiNtEt/OMbu32C5BovwUn1DLqJeaYzQ1twomMM9kLozOhPpGK9Z7DsWU6BY6phUsULjDkR/vsF3ow8Pc5M3DNVTNsE6HahAqd79I= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750238201; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Rdbuis/jJSBBA6iL6bnB7xmlGEIQGTluIIWA6E0ldDw=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=o9YxAqONeMlkZPGDgJtAPxWII1xA3Hh8cN2JzewplFMSoi21ntxwKX6jj0Jrnm9fCY/0rhQeLMf44xLfiPEoncHcUMDNvREdbDOoauyJXT6pdzsariUQ3ThlmCHotfWMDkYhJgbGMbF6L0xRkO7fNfjQP0AyFYjNr0kVTE3y1iI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=physik.fu-berlin.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=zedat.fu-berlin.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fu-berlin.de header.i=@fu-berlin.de header.b=YLh1+BZy; arc=none smtp.client-ip=130.133.4.66 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=physik.fu-berlin.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=zedat.fu-berlin.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fu-berlin.de header.i=@fu-berlin.de header.b="YLh1+BZy" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fu-berlin.de; s=fub01; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=AeG0FS9eZnOEHvr31SE3VuHabhmaltRe/amt8NnIDxA=; t=1750238198; x=1750842998; b=YLh1+BZyKsENFrGlXFOu3St8kYL5f+xIIhMAKVaZcY0hXxnQSZMYZavFZkJJkTrmLRnnYowlc3y RyGRhQz2HnWHHMCiw4WYDOAxxwQsKrNtvJiw2VHiCtbSjQjdJ7jV8E+UQiyPBjzFXf39mydAYdK7x aowG6zeH4ELvUPC2YkYnBQ7MoThE7msfwasvzbgLbq0xCLSco242yj30U17jrRHYn0s99NbxcsYc0 EPvttLc0i6t/OpITCXpSlemexAKPtYqKw4lGlBPNOxJyKUdlqVKuRoCAGTo5Sdc7WEDp0Af5KYwlx Ly/UXTroa+sS9kdaEinRkhHNOhKx5SvjunXA==; Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.98) with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (envelope-from ) id 1uRouK-00000003esK-1wrv; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 11:16:36 +0200 Received: from p57bd96d0.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([87.189.150.208] helo=[192.168.178.61]) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.98) with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (envelope-from ) id 1uRouK-00000003KYp-0z8F; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 11:16:36 +0200 Message-ID: <4c0581c5baccf73e96e53d755e70b57b23ba1da4.camel@physik.fu-berlin.de> Subject: Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz To: Finn Thain Cc: port-m68k , debian-68k , linux-m68k Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 11:16:35 +0200 In-Reply-To: <8eb87c55-95c2-0c73-4941-6e8732266220@linux-m68k.org> References: <80f5c684-638b-4486-9026-1f8689a7f147@yoseli.org> <95e56d983ace4976143c7e1180ffe5606c0ee3fe.camel@physik.fu-berlin.de> <758f14d8-6d03-2aab-468b-170b0bbb7d2a@linux-m68k.org> <8e0186f61cc9bbed2373ae215e80ab7e70042793.camel@physik.fu-berlin.de> <6e6f8e27ff90ce3f8535fc4f5c57049c59a9b227.camel@physik.fu-berlin.de> <49a62eda6aea856df248aa223365b5230020d829.camel@physik.fu-berlin.de> <569d73fb-8ad5-46f0-bf4c-568919f319e7@helsinkinet.fi> <022ab204-7be9-4f6a-a92f-2601fae1f146@vivier.eu> <5d8619dfe4134319b558684209f2b89c5c1447cf.camel@physik.fu-berlin.de> <889f54af-2317-ee51-cea5-47d813683944@linux-m68k.org> <5de0835e46f8c2479668fe5fe98f8e0d230cbfce.camel@physik.fu-berlin.de> <0b09dcea10c9bab4a50b2599ef8ac59b89f09b3e.camel@physik.fu-berlin.de> <8eb87c55-95c2-0c73-4941-6e8732266220@linux-m68k.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.56.2 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de X-ZEDAT-Hint: PO On Wed, 2025-06-18 at 13:50 +1000, Finn Thain wrote: > > How is messing with a hobbyist project "harmful" in any way? That makes= =20 > > no sense. > >=20 >=20 > If your port was a pure hobbyist project, you would never have brought= =20 > your complaint to the upstream mailing lists, where developers have to= =20 > work with ALL interested parties and make the necessary compromises. Can you list ALL interested parties, please? I only know about Gentoo and Debian and both want to make the switch. > But, as usual, you're trying to have it both ways. You pretend that wipin= g=20 > wiping your slate clean and starting over doesn't impact anyone else. But= =20 > then you complain when the upstream projects don't care to invest effort= =20 > into your scheme. Again, can you list the other downstream projects that would be affected an= d that oppose this change? Please come with actual evidence instead of just remaining vague. > The way to find a compromise is to build the thing you need, and then, if= =20 > any of it is found to be useful upstream, send patches! That's how this= =20 > process has always worked, has it not? I have never denied that. The problem here is that I started a discussion t= o resolve a longstanding problem with the m68k port and you immediately start= ed shooting at it instead of trying to work something out together. > Moreover, to the extent that those patches get merged, we will have the= =20 > beginnings of a second ABI with a second tuple. To the extend that those= =20 > patches get rejected, you will have a fork on your hands. I won't have a problem with maintaining the fork. As I have repeatedly said= , the Gentoo people are working on the same change, so it's more like the ups= tream developers that would exclude themselves. > So, some upstream developers will have to support both ABIs (for them,= =20 > you've just created work). Other developers will have to choose between= =20 > either one (for them, you've just make collaboration more difficult). You're again being vague. You talk about Linux/m68k as if there were dozens of downstream distributions and projects when there is in fact just Debian and Gentoo which both, as I have said countless times now, want to make the switch. So, I have no idea what these other mystical downstream projects should be. > This is a lose/lose proposition. And if you think I'm wrong about that,= =20 > please just send patches and demonstrate why. I have received multiple messages now, off- and on-list, from users that ar= e supporting my efforts as they see the value in making software more useful to users instead of just insisting on adhering to a broken ABI that no one really cares about anymore in the year 2025. Adrian --=20 .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer `. `' Physicist `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913