From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 5D5083858281; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 16:22:22 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5D5083858281 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1665418942; bh=7M9sncNLtE9nEcRjO2J0EomZNXNhvsRXvEqMhmM1/GE=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=C5P7MQSjSv9Vx9LbyFC+zZa6maqimAxEeSMm3pIQSmaU+/YwCzdwKmk9X+ZRD3He0 SyiRrJS2g6Z545C3qOPF3vWwrDthu9Mo7yDK/tLtagDsrzmCeQmzqF/QmCXcsYo70r 5BPGSvI4NaqJkNu3F7191H5cghj/LKuEmZ+UaRLI= From: "dodji at redhat dot com" To: libabigail@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug default/29650] "Assertion `__abg_cond__' failed." with with libabigail 2.1 Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 16:22:22 +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: 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 List-Id: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D29650 --- Comment #9 from dodji at redhat dot com --- "romain.geissler at amadeus dot com" writes: > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D29650 > > --- Comment #8 from Romain Geissler = --- > Thanks ! > > When I upgraded to abigail 2.1 I had actually not just one project hitting > this, but quite some among all the ones I maintain. Maybe it's not the ex= act > same issue, but in all case it was an assertion failure (the root cause o= f the > failure may be different for each). If they are all C++ libraries, then maybe it's the same bug (if the assert is at the same location). Sorry for that. > Do you plan on cutting a "bugfix" release in the coming days or this is n= ot > critical and it can way for a bigger release 2.2 in some months ? I don't have a planned release really soon, but I might cherry-pick the fix into the Fedora and EPEL packages of libabigail if that can be useful, leading to a libabigail-2.1-2 package. Would that be helpful? > If you plan for a release soon I will wait for it, otherwise I will > migrate again to 2.1 with a cherry-pick of your patch for this bug. Ah, if you can cherry-pick the fix into your 2.1, then it might be best to do that until we release 2.2, which I hope won't be too far down the road. I definitely wouldn't want to wait as long what we did for 2.1. Please let me know what you'd prefer. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=