[Bug default/19605] New: Suppressions do not seem to be working

[Bug default/19605] New: Suppressions do not seem to be working

[michi.henning at canonical dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19605

            Bug ID: 19605
           Summary: Suppressions do not seem to be working
           Product: libabigail
           Version: unspecified
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: default
          Assignee: dodji at redhat dot com
          Reporter: michi.henning at canonical dot com
                CC: libabigail at sourceware dot org
  Target Milestone: ---

Created attachment 8973
  --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8973&action=edit
Dump files and suppressions file

$ cat suppressions 
[suppress_function]
    change_kind = all
$ abidiff --suppressions suppressions dump1 dump2
Functions changes summary: 0 Removed, 0 Changed, 160 Added functions
Variables changes summary: 0 Removed, 0 Changed, 0 Added variable
Function symbols changes summary: 0 Removed, 90 Added function symbols not
referenced by debug info
Variable symbols changes summary: 0 Removed, 2 Added variable symbols not
referenced by debug info

160 Added functions:

  [A] 'function unity::scopes::testing::Benchmark::Result*
boost::serialization::factory<unity::scopes::testing::Benchmark::Result,
0>(typedef __va_list_tag __va_list_tag*)'   
{_ZN5boost13serialization7factoryIN5unity6scopes7testing9Benchmark6ResultELi0EEEPT_P13__va_list_tag}
...

It seems that, no matter what I put into the suppressions file (even syntax
errors), the file is never used.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug default/19605] Suppressions do not seem to be working

[dodji at redhat dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19605

dodji at redhat dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |WORKSFORME

--- Comment #4 from dodji at redhat dot com ---
Now that you (rightfully) filed and enhancement for checks against the ini file
in bug #19608, I guess we can close this problem report.  We'll track the issue
there.

Thank you for taking the time to report this issue!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug default/19605] Suppressions do not seem to be working

[dodji at redhat dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19605

--- Comment #1 from dodji at redhat dot com ---
OK, it looks like we really need to have better documentation *and*
better feedback from the sub-system that handles the suppression
specifications here.

> $ cat suppressions 
> [suppress_function]
>     change_kind = all

So, for the suppress_function directive to work, you need to provide at
least one of the following properties:
label, name, name_regexp, return_type_name, return_type_name_regexp,
symbol_name, symbol_name_regexp, symbol_version, symbol_version_regexp
or parameter.

If you just provide the change_kind = all without providing any of the
above properties, the supprss_function directive is ignored.

For instance, I just ran a little test here:

$ abidiff test0.o test1.o
Functions changes summary: 0 Removed, 0 Changed, 1 Added function
Variables changes summary: 0 Removed, 0 Changed, 0 Added variable

1 Added function:

  'function void baz()'    {_Z3bazv}

$ cat no-added-fns.abignore
[suppress_function]
  # Suppress all functions that got added. These are not ABI
  # incompatible changes
  name_regexp = *.
  change_kind = added-function
$ abidiff --suppressions no-added-fns.abignore test0.o test1.o ; echo "returned
value: $?"
Functions changes summary: 0 Removed, 0 Changed, 0 Added function (1 filtered
out)
Variables changes summary: 0 Removed, 0 Changed, 0 Added variable

returned value: 0
$ 

So that should work for you, hopefully?

Now I think we need a separate enhancement request to add better
feedback about these things.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug default/19605] Suppressions do not seem to be working

[dodji at redhat dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19605

--- Comment #3 from dodji at redhat dot com ---
> Thanks for your help!

You are welcome.

> Doc improvements would be good, at least for the major cases.

I have just pushed a doc change that states the mandatory options at
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=libabigail.git;a=commit;h=0cb928083d426fc519bc6f89afc2299ab4a2a68b

The web site has been updated accordingly.

Now you can read at
https://sourceware.org/libabigail/manual/libabigail-concepts.html#suppress-function:

    Note that for the [suppress_function] directive to work, at least one of
    the following properties must be provided:

        label, name, name_regexp, parameter, return_type_name, symbol_name,
        symbol_name_regexp, symbol_version, symbol_version_regexp.

    If none of the following properties are provided, then the
    [suppression_function] directive is simply ignored.

> For niggly detailed stuff, I'd probably rely on just complaining when
> parsing the ini file and spit out an appropriate error
> message. Otherwise, the doc might get too scary.

Indeed.  We need a separate enhancement request for this.

> In general, better semantic checks on the suppression file would be
> really good. I erroneously concluded that the entire --suppressions
> option was dysfunctional, simply because the total lack of feedback.

Damn right are you.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug default/19605] Suppressions do not seem to be working

[michi.henning at canonical dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19605

--- Comment #2 from Michi Henning <michi.henning at canonical dot com> ---
Thanks for your help!

Doc improvements would be good, at least for the major cases. For niggly
detailed stuff, I'd probably rely on just complaining when parsing the ini file
and spit out an appropriate error message. Otherwise, the doc might get too
scary.

In general, better semantic checks on the suppression file would be really
good. I erroneously concluded that the entire --suppressions option was
dysfunctional, simply because the total lack of feedback.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.