Re: Preliminary results - was: Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k

On Wed, 7 Jan 2026, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> The more interesting bit then is what happens when you actually turn on 
> -malign-int for the kernel itself. There are many drivers that change 
> behavior, but mostly this is going to be a fix rather than a regression.

Sorry, Arnd, but wasting memory is a regression not a bug fix. And if you 
do that on systems that have no memory to spare, you're probably going to 
cause -ENOMEM failures.

If you want to fix issues with CONFIG_DETECT_HUNG_TASK_BLOCKER or 
CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL, it's much better to simply align atomic types, as my 
patches have already demonstrated.

Assumptions about atomics are prevalent. But I reject your pandering to 
developers who make bad assumptions about integers, or those who would 
prefer that all architectures were the same, as if all users were the 
same.