From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 007A03858402; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 15:54:27 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 007A03858402 From: "dodji at redhat dot com" To: libabigail@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug default/26646] unexpected declaration-only types Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 15:54:27 +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: dodji at redhat 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 15:54:28 -0000 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D26646 --- Comment #25 from dodji at redhat dot com --- (In reply to gprocida from comment #24) > Hi. >=20 > I ran some quick tests - the libabigail test suite and on the two kernels. Thanks! > Good >=20 > * vmlinux3 and vmlinux4 get ABIs which are the same, including > declaration-only / fully-defined status > * both have more fully-defined types than the previous iteration (around = 9) > * a Linux test case looks better (some declaration-only duplicates vanish) Good to know. >=20 > Not so good >=20 > * struct can_dev_rcv_lists is now declaration-only (w.r.t. to the original > baseline ABIs) > * struct prefix_info too (w.r.t. an intermediate code version) OK, I haven't analyzed this, is it sure that it was supposed to be fully declared? > * there is a test case regression (nmap) OK, I think I have the reason for this. It seems to have been an unfortunate patch that snuck into the tree. I have removed it and re-push the branch. = You can fetch it again and test. This one should disappear. 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. Thanks. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=