On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 09:37:16AM -0700, John Moon wrote: > On 4/11/2023 11:14 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > Would you find the tool more useful if it simply filtered out all instances > > > where the size of the type did not change? This would filter out the > > > following which the tool currently flags: > > > > > > - enum expansions > > > - reserved field expansions > > > - expansions of a struct with a flex array at the end > > > - type changes > > > - re-ordering of existing members > > > - ...others? > > > > Obviously not, as some of those are real breakages, and some are not at > > all. > > > > Please understand what is an abi breakage. Adding new enums is not. > > Using a reserved field is not. Reording existing members IS. > > > > Yes, understood that method would miss certain classes of breakages. I was > suggesting it as a way to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of the tool > since we don't currently have an algorithm for determining breakages with > 100% accuracy. Why not? You know the different types of things here based on the differences between the dwarf data, and they fall into different categories, and those different categories mean different things. If you have questions as to which type of change is allowed and which is not, just ask us, the rules are not complex, nor impossible to describe, otherwise we wouldn't have a stable api at all, right? thanks, greg k-h
