On 9/11/24 18:03, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 3:08 AM Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 8/15/24 19:39, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
>> More importantly, it made me think which names are included in the CRC
>> calculation and which ones are omitted.
>>
>> If I'm looking correctly, names of structs, enums and enumerators make
>> it into the calculation. On the other hand, names of struct members,
>> function parameters and exports (functions/variables) are missing.
>>
>> I think the names of struct members and function parameters should be
>> added as well. If the code changes 'struct A { int cols; int rows; }' to
>> 'struct A { int rows; int cols; }' then that should be recognized as
>> a different API/ABI. The same applies to function parameters.
>
> I did leave out member names because typically renaming a member
> doesn't change the ABI, but you're right, it might help capture these
> types of changes where fields with identical types are reordered for
> some reason. I'll add names.
>
>> I'm not sure about export names. I would probably include them as well,
>> if only for consistency.
>
> I would rather leave out the symbol names to have consistent CRCs
> between symbols that have identical types. Or is there an actual
> benefit in including the symbol name in the CRC? The names are already
> rather explicitly involved when symbol versions are checked.
Ok with me. I can't think of a strong argument to do it one way or the
other.
-- Petr
