Bug 23629 - Libabigail thinks GLib broke ABI
Summary: Libabigail thinks GLib broke ABI
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: libabigail
Classification: Unclassified
Component: default (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Dodji Seketeli
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2018-09-11 13:40 UTC by Mathieu Bridon
Modified: 2020-11-10 10:52 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Host:
Target:
Build:
Last reconfirmed: 2018-09-17 00:00:00

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Mathieu Bridon 2018-09-11 13:40:45 UTC 
Over at the Freedesktop-Sdk project, we're using abidiff to check for ABI breaks of our whole SDK.

Updating GLib from 2.56. to 2.58, abidiff reports the following:

  Functions changes summary: 0 Removed, 1 Changed, 0 Added function
  Variables changes summary: 0 Removed, 0 Changed, 0 Added variable
  
  1 function with some indirect sub-type change:
  
    [C]'function void g_clear_object(volatile GObject**)' at gobject.c:3381:1 has some indirect sub-type changes:
      parameter 1 of type 'volatile GObject**' changed:
        in pointed to type 'volatile GObject*':
          in pointed to type 'volatile GObject' at gobject.h:187:1:
            entity changed from 'volatile GObject' to 'typedef GObject' at gobject.h:187:1
            type size hasn't changed

This was a deliberate change in GLib: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib/commit/2aacef39b1cfe4cc5eade704db05ffe1516be22e

Could this be a bug in libabigail, that this isn't considered a harmless change?
Comment 1 Dodji Seketeli 2018-09-17 07:52:24 UTC 
"bochecha at daitauha dot fr" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org> a
écrit:


>             entity changed from 'volatile GObject' to 'typedef GObject' at
> gobject.h:187:1
>             type size hasn't changed

[...]

> Could this be a bug in libabigail, that this isn't considered a harmless
> change?

Yes, it is.  I think we should flag this change as harmless.

Thanks for pointing this out.
Comment 2 Dodji Seketeli 2018-09-17 12:52:01 UTC 
> Yes, it is.  I think we should flag this change as harmless.

Actually, it seems like libabigail 1.4 actually flags this as harmless.
But then it looks like I forgot to update the libabigail package in
Fedora 28.   The update should reach that distro soon, i.e:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-0f1a9b9137.

Sorry for the inconvenience.
Comment 3 Mathieu Bridon 2018-09-17 13:32:07 UTC 
I can confirm this is fixed by libabigail 1.4, which marks this as a harmless change automatically.
Comment 4 Matthias Maennich 2020-11-10 10:52:38 UTC 
Resolved with 1.4 or later.