> On Mon, 08 Jun 2015, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: [...] >> I have not seen the output of abicheck (I use abi-compliance-checker >> personally but I guess abidiff is as good). It's abidiff :-) >> However, I'm not sure about which changes which are not breakages you >> mean? I'm not aware of ABI changes which do not break users of >> libraries. Alexander Bokovoy <abokovoy@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit: > Adding new functions to ABI constitute changes that don't break existing > users as long as previously available data structures are not > affected. Yes. Though, in this particular case, you can invoke "abidiff" in a way that makes it not mention these new function additions. You can, for instance, invoke it in a way that makes it show only the exported functions/variables that got removed, as well as those functions/variables for which sub-types have changed in their signatures. These have more chance to be ABI related issues. The "interesting" case in my opinion is when the functions/variables have sub-type changes which doesn't cause any underlying ELF symbol name change. It's usually In those cases that we might need a qualified user to review "the abi diff" to tell if it constitutes an ABI breakage or not. Cheers, -- Dodji -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
