We routinely run similar checks on our builds and track the changes that libabigail reports. We require that ABI changes, even of the benign sort you found are reviewed and accepted. The set of expected changes between releases is found here:
https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/file/tip/automation/abi-check As you can see, mostly these files are empty, indicating no change to the ABI. You should see that those files from the 3.41 release match with your report (there were no changes in 3.40). https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/file/NSS_3_41_RTM/automation/abi-check On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 1:59 AM <emersonbern...@tutanota.com> wrote: > Jan 19, 2019, 5:58 PM by p...@nohats.ca <mailto:p...@nohats.ca>: > > > On Sat, 19 Jan 2019, > emersonbern...@tutanota.com <mailto: > emersonbern...@tutanota.com>> wrote: > > > >> Infreedesktop-sdk[1] <>> https://gitlab.com/freedesktop-sdk < > https://gitlab.com/freedesktop-sdk>>> > we're trying to keep ABI > compatibility when updating elements like cups to new releases. In order to > achieve this we use libabigail[2] <>> https://sourceware.org/libabigail < > https://sourceware.org/libabigail/>>> > tool to automate ABI compat > checks. During update NSS from 3.39 to 3.41 (we missed 3.40 release) our > tool produced following complaint: > >> > > > > Why do you call that an ABI break? It has added values to an enum, and > > the only "change" was to the value specifying the roof of the enum ? > > > > Paul > > > I just reported output from an automation tool and asked for opinion. > Confirming that it's just a false positive is what I expected to get. Thank > you for help. > > Emerson > -- > dev-tech-crypto mailing list > dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto > -- dev-tech-crypto mailing list dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto
