[Bug default/26084] New: Misreporting of return type typedef differences in leaf mode

[Bug default/26084] New: Misreporting of return type typedef differences in leaf mode

[gprocida+abigail at google dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26084

            Bug ID: 26084
           Summary: Misreporting of return type typedef differences in
                    leaf mode
           Product: libabigail
           Version: unspecified
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: default
          Assignee: dodji at redhat dot com
          Reporter: gprocida+abigail at google dot com
                CC: libabigail at sourceware dot org
  Target Milestone: ---

Minimal case. Note that output is good in default reporting mode.

==> test-leaf1.0.cc <==
typedef int changed;

changed changed_fun() {
  return 0;
}

==> test-leaf1.1.cc <==
typedef long changed;

changed changed_fun() {
  return 0;
}

$ for i in 0 1; do gcc -g -Wall -Wextra -c test-leaf1.$i.cc -o test-leaf1.$i.o;
done
$ .../abidiff --leaf-changes-only test-leaf1.?.o
Leaf changes summary: 1 artifact changed
Changed leaf types summary: 0 leaf type changed
Removed/Changed/Added functions summary: 0 Removed, 1 Changed, 0 Added function
Removed/Changed/Added variables summary: 0 Removed, 0 Changed, 0 Added variable

1 function with some sub-type change:

  [C] 'function changed changed_fun()' at test-leaf1.1.cc:3:1 has some sub-type
changes:

$

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

[Bug default/26084] Misreporting of return type typedef differences in leaf mode

[dodji at redhat dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26084

dodji at redhat dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |DUPLICATE

--- Comment #1 from dodji at redhat dot com ---
This was solved by fix to bug #26309.

Thanks for taking the time to report this.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 26309 ***

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