From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 4BB2F3858419; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 11:44:00 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4BB2F3858419 From: "dodji at seketeli dot org" To: libabigail@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug default/26646] unexpected declaration-only types Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2022 11:43:59 +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 seketeli dot org 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, 03 Mar 2022 11:44:00 -0000 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D26646 --- Comment #33 from dodji at seketeli dot org --- Giuliano Procida via Libabigail a =C3=A9crit: >> Does that make any sense? >> > > I think it makes some sense, but it would take me some time to read > through, digest and reason about this properly. > > Instead... I'm going to advertise my comparison algorithm again (for > which I've already done all the hard thinking and testing). :-) I'm > not sure how directly applicable it is to canonicalisation, but there > is the *potential* to eliminate all redundant comparisons. OK, I think this would be whole project in itself, as far as I am concerned. Right now, I am interested in fixing this issue in a 'best effort' mode, keeping most of the existing infrastructure for the sake of consistency and limiting the unintended impacts, release a 2.1 tarball and then we can talk about this further if you like. I am not ditching what you are saying. Just that this place (patch review and this bug report) doesn't seem like the best place for this right now. Rather, a new comparison algorithm altogether being a project in itself (IMHO), it'd be better to keep this discussion under its own "feature request bug report", I'd say. I understand if you don't have time to review what I am proposing. I'll thus go ahead and look at your proposal a bit later. Thanks. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=