> > i think i've noted about this before, around 13months ago freebsd
> > first disabled alignment faults, and they haven't enabled them since.
> > deja vu, or not, i don't recall if the last diff like below did go
> > anywhere, nor if it got discussed about, so i'm sorry in advance,
> > if i'm banging my head to the wall with this one.
>
> AFAIK we're rather headed towards strict alignement rules whenever
> possible.
right.
fact: there are strict alignment architectures.
fact: there are non-strict alignment architectures, in fact now the
majority by install base.
if we don't provide encouragement for developers to pay attention to
strict alignment architectures today, we might as well send them all
the ones we have to the recycler today, right?
for nearly 20 years I've spoken about the strengths we gain from
supporting diverse platforms.
as to whether we are headed to a world where all platforms are
non-strict? in hardware? I don't believe it. In software, sure but
the emulation cost in hw or sw is never really free.
it comes with a complexity we all pay for, and it limits future
innovation. so in some ways I'd prefer if we allow them to survive,
by continuing to demand a sw ecosystem that recognizes their
existance.
> They messed up their new sha1 implementation. Should be fixed with
> git-2.13.1p0, git-2.13.2 works fine here.
and in this case, it found a bug which affected all the other strict
platforms. I rest my case.
