How was this solved for other targets? -----Original Message----- From: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 5:01 AM To: Laurent Vivier <laur...@vivier.eu> Cc: Taylor Simpson <tsimp...@quicinc.com>; Riku Voipio <riku.voi...@iki.fi>; QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Hexagon: Swap SIGRGMAX-1 and SIGRTMIN+1
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 10:54, Laurent Vivier <laur...@vivier.eu> 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
