06.10.2016, 08:23, "Pierre-Yves Chibon": > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 06:36:16PM +0300, Ponomarenko Andrey wrote: >> The tool is based on different software stack for analysis of backward >> compatibility developed since 2009: https://github.com/lvc (ABI Compliance Checker, ABI Dumper, etc.) >> >> RedHat created an alternative libabigail tool in 2013. Implementation and reports are completely different. But anyway, two is better than one. Now we can verify reports of both tools by each other. > > I'm confused what Red Hat as to do in there. As far as I know, it's a person not > a company that runs the development or libabigail and I very much doubt that > this person was tasked to do that by some higher power. > > That being said, did you look at it? Did you make some comparison on how it > performs compared to this stack you mention? > Are there times where one finds something that the other don't, vice-versa? > Can they be ranked or are they too different to be compared? > > Thanks, > Pierre After a closer look at the source code, reports and docs of abipkgdiff / libabigail tools I can list some pros and cons of https://github.com/lvc/pkg-abidiff / abi-compliance-checker: PROS - separated analysis of both backward binary compatibility and backward source compatibility - assigning severity levels to ABI changes - explaining effects of ABI changes - checks for more compatibility rules - less false positives - visual reports - grouping of affected ABI interfaces by root cause (usually a change in the structure of data type), so the output report is more compact and easy to review - estimating total compatibility rate of an object CONS - may be slower and consume more RAM memory than libabigail tools due to implementation language (C++ vs Python/Perl/C) - the generation of output report is not configurable (can't pass any additional options to abi-compliance-checker via cli interface of pkg-abidiff) - no option to generate detailed plain-text report (only console output and summary report in JSON format are present) Please describe more CONS if any. I'll try soon to compare outputs of both tools on a test library that implements almost all ABI changes noted in "Policies/Binary Compatibility Issues With C++" [1] in order to check out how it works in practice. Anyway it is very handy to have two different implementations. In the future I will verify updates by both abipkgdiff/libabigail and pkg-abidiff/abi-compliance-checker tools. Thank you. [1] https://community.kde.org/Policies/Binary_Compatibility_Issues_With_C%2B%2B _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
