OK, it makes sense. I will revert the changes. Thanks for your explanations.
On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 12:49 PM matthew green <m...@eterna.com.au> wrote: > > > I was changing news68k specific code, thus wasn't treating them as > > common. But I understand the point. > > there's a *LOT* of m68k code that is copied into all the ports > that is almost identical, and should really be shared, but it > not, and changes like can make this harder to share. > > ie, while it might appear news68k specific, ideally most of it > would end up in arch/m68k instead. > > it would really be far better for that merge, than to worry > about obscure compile options -- there's a real cost when we > have platform changes to make, and 10 m68k copies are needed > instead of 1. we've done some of this over time (for not > just m68k) but there's quite a lot of left here.. > > thanks. > > > .mrg.
