From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id EA434385841F; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 16:05:18 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org EA434385841F From: "gprocida at google dot com" To: libabigail@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug default/26646] unexpected declaration-only types Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 16:05:18 +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: gprocida at google dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED 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: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: libabigail@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list of the Libabigail project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 16:05:19 -0000 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D26646 --- Comment #26 from gprocida at google dot com --- Hi. (In reply to dodji from comment #25) > (In reply to gprocida from comment #24) > > * struct can_dev_rcv_lists is now declaration-only (w.r.t. to the origi= nal > > baseline ABIs) > > * struct prefix_info too (w.r.t. an intermediate code version) >=20 > OK, I haven't analyzed this, is it sure that it was supposed to be fully > declared? Good question. I have to assume there is some set of paths where we can get from the symbol to the full definition, either by going down a path or by jumping from a declaration in one path to a definition in another path. However, I have not tried to code up this idea! > > * there is a test case regression (nmap) >=20 > OK, I think I have the reason for this. It seems to have been an unfortun= ate > patch that snuck into the tree. I have removed it and re-push the branch= .=20 > You can fetch it again and test. This one should disappear. It has. > If the regression disappears, I guess we can say that the current state is > an improvement. If so, I'll clean-up and post the patches on the list, if > you agree. Further investigation will continue after that. Agreed. Thanks! --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=