From: "dodji at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: libabigail@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug default/23700] Wrong propagation of private type suppression category
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2018 00:00:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-23700-9487-FvutLMsRhO@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-23700-9487@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23700
dodji at redhat dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed| |2018-10-01
Summary|Surprising abidiff report |Wrong propagation of
|on IBus |private type suppression
| |category
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from dodji at redhat dot com ---
Here is my analysis of the second part of the issue reported here.
Conceptually, there are two kinds of type suppression specifications:
1/ a generic user-provided suppression specification that is meant to suppress
changes on types specified by the user
2/ a private type suppression specification that is automatically generated
from the path to public header files provided by the user.
Technically, one difference between 1 and 2 lays in the way we propagate
categories of changes matched by those suppression specifications.
If a class type change of category SUPPRESSED_CATEGORY is referenced in a
typedef change, then the typedef change is also considered to be of category
SUPPRESSED_CATEGORY. In other words, the SUPPRESSED_CATEGORY category is
propagated to the typedef change. That means that if a change to a class type
is suppressed, a (changed) typedef to that class is considered to be suppressed
too.
But then that is not true if the class type was changed because it's private.
In that, a typedef to that class can be *public*, because the said typedef is
defined in a public header. In that case the typedef change should *NOT* be
considered suppressed just because the class type change was suppressed.
The problem we have here is that we don't make any difference between 1/ and
2/. So we need to introduce different propagation rules for 1/ and 2/.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-01 14:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-01 0:00 [Bug default/23700] New: Surprising abidiff report on IBus bochecha at daitauha dot fr
2018-01-01 0:00 ` [Bug default/23700] Wrong propagation of private type suppression category dodji at redhat dot com
2018-01-01 0:00 ` [Bug default/23700] Surprising abidiff report on IBus bochecha at daitauha dot fr
2018-01-01 0:00 ` dodji at redhat dot com [this message]
2018-01-01 0:00 ` bochecha at daitauha dot fr
2018-01-01 0:00 ` [Bug default/23700] Wrong propagation of private type suppression category dodji at redhat dot com
2018-01-01 0:00 ` [Bug default/23700] Surprising abidiff report on IBus bochecha at daitauha dot fr
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-23700-9487-FvutLMsRhO@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org \
--cc=libabigail@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).