From: "gprocida at google dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: libabigail@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug default/29044] abidiff reporter inconsistency
Date: Mon, 30 May 2022 16:15:27 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-29044-9487-krUI1JuIEG@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-29044-9487@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29044
--- Comment #2 from gprocida at google dot com ---
Hi.
Here's (roughly) how each XML was created.
An external developer built a kernel some time previously. abidw (likely our
version with some changes dating back to January) was used to create the XML, a
symbol list was passed and hash-based type ids were requested. abitidy (which
has not seen much recent development) post-processed this. There is a small
chance outdated tools were used. The resulting XML was committed to an AOSP
kernel branch.
A pending change (less than a week later) reached presubmit tests. The kernel
was built in a standardised environment. abidw extracted, abitidy tidied,
abidiff diffed. Both abidiff and abidiff --leaf-changes-only were run in
parallel and this is how we spotted the discrepancy. The symbol list resulted
in a 10M ABI file vs a 19M ABI file without it.
I can provide you with the second kernel. I may even be able to provide you
with the abidw, abitidy and abidiff command lines and corresponding source
commits. Bear in mind that everything would have been built with Clang.
I cannot provide you with the first kernel as we never had it. I could try to
reproduce the XML from first principles though and if I get a match provide you
with the kernel.
It will be a fair amount of work to collect all the information and files.
Perhaps I should try to reproduce the first XML file and go from there.
However, if you are not happy working with Clang or abitidy (which I can
understand), then it may not be worth the effort.
Just in case this is relevant: I've noticed that passing a symbol list to abidw
(which uses the existing symbol suppression mechanisms) results in fewer
fully-defined types in the ABI than just editing the XML output to remove
unwanted symbols. I'm tempted to open another bug. However, I'd definitely need
to send you a large vmlinux file.
Let me know if you'd like me to proceed with data gathering.
Regards,
Giuliano.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-30 16:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-11 10:08 [Bug default/29044] New: " gprocida at google dot com
2022-05-30 15:22 ` [Bug default/29044] " dodji at redhat dot com
2022-05-30 16:15 ` gprocida at google dot com [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-29044-9487-krUI1JuIEG@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org \
--cc=libabigail@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).