RE: [PATCH] Hexagon: Swap SIGRGMAX-1 and SIGRTMIN+1

[Taylor Simpson]

How was this solved for other targets?

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Maydell <address@hidden>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 5:01 AM
To: Laurent Vivier <address@hidden>
Cc: Taylor Simpson <address@hidden>; Riku Voipio <address@hidden>; QEMU 
Developers <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Hexagon: Swap SIGRGMAX-1 and SIGRTMIN+1


On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 10:54, Laurent Vivier <address@hidden> wrote:
> I understand your point, and I agree, but not allowing this will block
> the merge of the hexagon target, and I don't see any fix for the
> underlying problem coming soon.
>
> Other targets work without this change, and adding this change breaks
> some user space applications (like go), whereas adding this change for
> hexagon target only will improve the situation for it (with no
> regression, as it doesn't work at all for the moment)

I care more that we should fix things correctly and maintain the consistency of 
how our architectures behave than that we are able to quickly land a target for 
a fairly minor architecture, to be honest. If we land hexagon with hacks and 
workarounds then we're potentially stuck with that behaviour.

thanks
-- PMM