From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28400 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2017 20:55:33 -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 28354 invoked by uid 48); 23 Mar 2017 20:55:29 -0000 From: "woodard at redhat dot com" To: libabigail@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug default/21296] abidiff reports possibly bogus differences and crashes Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2017 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: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: woodard at redhat dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED 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: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2017-q1/txt/msg00056.txt.bz2 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D21296 Ben Woodard changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |woodard at redhat dot com --- Comment #1 from Ben Woodard --- jwakely and I were discussing this, this morning. We think that there are actually three problems: 1) the abidiff crash 2) the second changed function seems to only be different with regards to whitespace. We think that whitespace differences should be ignored. Can you make the evaluative function ignore the change in the whitespace. 3) libabigail seems to miss the true nature of the ABI change which is that= one of the parameters is passed on the stack while the other is passed on a register. We believe that GCC implements the correct calling convention according to the Itanium C++ ABI. See: https://bugs.llvm.org//show_bug.cgi?id=3D23034 I haven't looked at the= DWARF yet but jwakely seemed to say that he wasn't surprised that libabigail miss= ed detecting this ABI change because the DWARF was insufficient. If that is in fact the case, then we probably need to file a couple of BZ's to improve the DWARF on GCC and CLAMG so that libabigail has the information needed to add= ress this. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.