Hi, On Wed, 2023-04-12 at 09:37 -0700, John Moon via Libabigail 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. Note that you can check the exit code of libabigail's abidiff to see whether something is an incompatible abi change or not, see: https://sourceware.org/libabigail/manual/abidiff.html#return-values You can also of course use suppressions to instruct abidiff to avoid reporting changes involving certain ABI artifacts: https://sourceware.org/libabigail/manual/libabigail-concepts.html#suppr-spec-label Cheers, Mark
