From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 1A6AF3858432; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 09:20:48 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1A6AF3858432 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1711099248; bh=DRmUHYXTc8NZt3wkA+6AP9zfMTl56NdY7x4vjJflVbI=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=YjnTWjAqrnJJ+MF17Wq9q1K8wNvvQ7hp9n+G/NQCi1gAOuBXx9yLrBmuI1gSPXmQs 9vPa7hOy0zpwNKui4v1kvH23hptPG469GNF6Z4ush/wyLAsr84duCRO3Bt1WurFosR QLycrncez80/gjVM5zIgMpHn4av2ZJTxLW9uhREs= From: "dodji at redhat dot com" To: libabigail@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug default/31513] abidiff differences due to change in compiler version Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 09:20:46 +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: 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 List-Id: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D31513 --- Comment #10 from dodji at redhat dot com --- "quic_ashudas at quicinc dot com" writes: > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D31513 > > --- Comment #8 from Ashutosh Das (QUIC) = --- > Thanks for sharing the detailed analysis. You are welcome. > I understand that this some developers might be interested in knowing more > about such changes, however as we agree this are compatible changes in th= at > case the abidiff return code should not return value 12 (suggests incompa= tible > change). Oh, I didn't realize that the return code was: (ABIDIFF_ABI_CHANGE | ABIDIFF_ABI_INCOMPATIBLE_CHANGE). It should indeed be ABIDIFF_ABI_CHANGE. Now I think that is the real bug. > Can we make this error messages as warning and return a compatible return= code. Sure. The return code should indeed be ABIDIFF_ABI_CHANGE (suggesting a review from the user). That is the real bug. Thinking more about that, I am even thinking that we might go further and filter that change out by default. Thanks again for reporting this issue. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=