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
