From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailserv2.iuinc.com (qmailr@mailserv2.iuinc.com [206.245.164.55]) by puffin.external.hp.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id CAA02066 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 02:41:54 -0600 Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:41:48 +0200 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Alan Cox Cc: Matthew Wilcox , parisc-linux@thepuffingroup.com Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] HPUX binary compatibility Message-ID: <19990621104148.M30362@mencheca.ch.genedata.com> References: <19990620194015.J30362@mencheca.ch.genedata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from Alan Cox on Sun, Jun 20, 1999 at 10:05:16PM +0100 List-ID: On Sun, Jun 20, 1999 at 10:05:16PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > any negative effect on anything. Where it gets a little more thorny is > > in signal.h -- HPUX uses more than 32 signals. Is it going to negatively > > impact Linux at all to use more than 32? I see there is space reserved > > for them, but I'd like someone to reassure me. > > How many non RT signals has HP/UX got. If its more than 32 we should allow > for it, otherwise whoever does HP/UX compatibility will hate you 1-36 are non-RT, 37-44 are RT. The header file contains the ominous comment: /* New signals: assign numbers before _SIGRTMIN, and increase _SIGRTMIN and _SIGRTMAX to keep at end. */ The signal.h I committed last night gives Linux/PARISC ordinary signals from 1-36 and RT signals from 37-64. I reused _SIGGFAULT (Graphics framebuffer fault) to be SIGSTKFLT for which HPUX has no equivalent. My question was, will having more than 32 signals annoy any Linux people? -- Matthew Wilcox "Windows and MacOS are products, contrived by engineers in the service of specific companies. Unix, by contrast, is not so much a product as it is a painstakingly compiled oral history of the hacker subculture." - N Stephenson