On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 12:30 +0100, Victor Stinner wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 8:19 AM <glaub...@debian.org> wrote:
> > The thing is you made assumptions about how downstream distributions use
> > Python without doing some research first ("16-bit m68k-linux").
>
> I'm talking about 16-bit memory alignment which causes SIGBUS if it's
> not respected on m68k.
>
I don't understand why you consider this to be a problem. After all,
x86 has stronger (32-bit) alignment requirements, so m68k is actually
less likely to break.
> For example, unicodeobject.c requires special
> code just for this arch:
>
> /*
> * Issue #17237: m68k is a bit different from most architectures in
> * that objects do not use "natural alignment" - for example, int and
> * long are only aligned at 2-byte boundaries. Therefore the assert()
> * won't work; also, tests have shown that skipping the "optimised
> * version" will even speed up m68k.
> */
> #if !defined(__m68k__)
> (...)
Unless I'm reading something wrong, the code is disabled not because it
m68k is broken (as your comment seems to imply) but because the assert
is wrong and because the code turned out to be slower. That said, I
wonder if this 'optimized' path has been actually benchmarked on other
supported platforms.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/I7IXAQPMWDV3ZZE7OAFA5KQ35YW4IMSR/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
