From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay9-d.mail.gandi.net (relay9-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.199]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3DED3858C60; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 11:43:56 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org F3DED3858C60 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=seketeli.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=seketeli.org Received: (Authenticated sender: dodji@seketeli.org) by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 07C24FF807; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 11:43:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4F13B5802B4; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 12:43:54 +0100 (CET) From: Dodji Seketeli To: Giuliano Procida via Libabigail Cc: dodji at seketeli dot org , Giuliano Procida Subject: Re: [Bug default/26646] unexpected declaration-only types Organization: Me, myself and I References: X-Operating-System: Fedora 36 X-URL: http://www.seketeli.net/~dodji Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2022 12:43:54 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Giuliano Procida via Libabigail's message of "Wed, 2 Mar 2022 22:35:42 +0000") Message-ID: <87k0dbi7lx.fsf@seketeli.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libabigail@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list of the Libabigail project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2022 11:43:58 -0000 Giuliano Procida via Libabigail a =C3=A9crit: >> Does that make any sense? >> > > I think it makes some sense, but it would take me some time to read > through, digest and reason about this properly. > > Instead... I'm going to advertise my comparison algorithm again (for > which I've already done all the hard thinking and testing). :-) I'm > not sure how directly applicable it is to canonicalisation, but there > is the *potential* to eliminate all redundant comparisons. OK, I think this would be whole project in itself, as far as I am concerned. Right now, I am interested in fixing this issue in a 'best effort' mode, keeping most of the existing infrastructure for the sake of consistency and limiting the unintended impacts, release a 2.1 tarball and then we can talk about this further if you like. I am not ditching what you are saying. Just that this place (patch review and this bug report) doesn't seem like the best place for this right now. Rather, a new comparison algorithm altogether being a project in itself (IMHO), it'd be better to keep this discussion under its own "feature request bug report", I'd say. I understand if you don't have time to review what I am proposing. I'll thus go ahead and look at your proposal a bit later. Thanks. --=20 Dodji