Re: Tuple and changes for m68k with -malign-int

[Finn Thain <fthain@linux-m68k.org>]

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.