From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id BD0123858005; Mon,  6 Dec 2021 13:54:07 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BD0123858005
From: "dodji at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: libabigail@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug default/28073] [libabigail] Incorrect size for bitfields
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2021 13:54:07 +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: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: dodji at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: resolution bug_status
Message-ID: <bug-28073-9487-X52t8m0DRP@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-28073-9487@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-28073-9487@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
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 <libabigail.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/options/libabigail>,
 <mailto:libabigail-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libabigail/>
List-Help: <mailto:libabigail-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/libabigail>,
 <mailto:libabigail-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2021 13:54:07 -0000

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D28073

dodji at redhat dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED

--- Comment #1 from dodji at redhat dot com ---
I think the correct suppression specification for this should be:

1/
[suppress_type]
        name =3D bigstruct
        has_data_member_inserted_between =3D {offset_of(bitfield0),
offset_of(other)}

Why?

because offset_after(bitfield0) means the offset of the data member that co=
mes
after bitfiled0, in the initial version of the type.  In that version, the =
data
member that comes after the data member "bitfield0" is the data member "oth=
er".

So, {offset_after(bitfield0), offset_of(other)} is equivalent to:
{offset_of(other), offset_of(other)}.  And that is not what we want.

The code that evaluates the suppression specification, however, has a
tangentially related flaw:  If bitfield0 is later removed, the suppression
specification 1/ should not suppress that removal change.  That flaw is now
fixed by the commit
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=3Dlibabigail.git;a=3Dcommit;h=3D3e0eeb9f98216=
ecd1c3224f687fe1e1ef72b56e4
which also updates the documentation of to clarify the use of the
has_data_member_inserted_between property.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=