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 653D33857404; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:21:19 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 653D33857404
From: "woodard at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: libabigail@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug default/28976] Optionally ignore SONAME when comparing libraries
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:21:19 +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: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: woodard at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: woodard at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-28976-9487-yEjrSHYFyf@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-28976-9487@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-28976-9487@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, 21 Mar 2022 19:21:19 -0000

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D28976

--- Comment #3 from Ben Woodard <woodard at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Matthias Maennich from comment #2)
> The hunk
>=20
> +  if(ctxt->show_soname_change())
> +    r->priv_->sonames_equal_ =3D f->get_soname() =3D=3D s->get_soname();
> +  else
> +    r->priv_->sonames_equal_ =3D true;
>=20
> can be written as
>=20
> + r->priv_->sonames_equal_ =3D ! ctxt->show_soname_change()=20
>                             || f->get_soname() =3D=3D s->get_soname();

That is clever. It might just be me but I find my version easier to read an=
d I
doubt with optimization that the resulting machine code is going to be much
different. We should only be passing through this code once per execution a=
nd
so even if it isn't -- oh well.

I also considered:

r->priv_->sonames_equal_ =3D ctxt->show_soname_change() ? f->get_soname() =
=3D=3D
s->get_soname() : true;

and yours is a more compact form of that.

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