From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 51304 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2015 16:34:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libabigail-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: Sender: libabigail-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 50738 invoked by uid 48); 20 Aug 2015 16:34:44 -0000 From: "andrew.c.morrow at gmail dot com" To: libabigail@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug default/18838] Normalize the output of abidw Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 00:00:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: libabigail X-Bugzilla-Component: default X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: andrew.c.morrow at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: dodji at redhat dot com X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2015-q3/txt/msg00019.txt.bz2 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18838 --- Comment #4 from andrew.c.morrow at gmail dot com --- I agree with what you are saying in the sense of deciding manually if an application should re-link. Not all ABI changes in a dependent library require a re-link. However, my use case is more narrow and less procedurally flexible. I'm interested in the ABI hash as part of a best-effort elimination of needless re-links in a build system that generates lots of shared libraries. In other words, if liba.so depends on libb.so, and libb.so was just rebuilt, I'd like to avoid rebuilding liba.so - if possible. If the ABI hash of libb.so didn't change, then I definitely don't need to re-link liba.so. If it did change then I'll just re-link liba.so. Perhaps that wasn't strictly necessary as you point out, but at worst that is a missed build time optimization. Needing to have access to two versions of libb.so is also problematic in the context of a build system like SCons, because there typically is no way to retain the prior version of libb.so, or name such a thing in the dependency graph. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.