On 20 March 2018 at 14:50, Derek Foreman <der...@osg.samsung.com> wrote: > On 2018-03-20 07:11 AM, Daniel Stone wrote: >> On 20 March 2018 at 11:55, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 20 March 2018 at 11:46, Daniel Stone <dan...@fooishbar.org> wrote: >>>> Sure. As on IRC though, we definitely need to add at least _ftext for >>>> MIPS anyway: >>>> https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib/commit/ad12142943e0f20ed9583c9d6bf50f6262110c74 >>>> >>>> And probably some more for ARM toolchains using other linkers: >>>> http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.dui0474k/pge1362066045758.html >>>> >>>> Doing a quick check across all the architectures on Debian shows that >>>> your updated list is also missing _fbss, _fdata, and _ftext. So we'd >>>> need to respin for those as well, but I think at this point the >>>> inconvenience of maintaining a list of every linker's implementation >>>> detail on every platform, outweighs the risk of an exported >>>> underscore-prefixed symbol slipping through review. >>> >>> I think you're preemptively worried about this. Plus there's no need >>> to add every symbol a search could find. >>> >>> Even then, ask yourself the question: >>> Which is better - updating an ugly looking list once in a blue moon or >>> having apps use internal API? >>> >>> As said above: _if_ it turns out to be labour intensive - fine remove it. >>> We've already spend more time researching than what the [expected] >>> maintenance for 1 year would be ;-) >> >> It all depends on how you view scope and probability. >> >> I don't agree my concern is preemptive: we've just shipped a beta >> where 'make check' fails on a few architectures, and the proposed fix >> (adding several symbols to the platform list) will still fail on >> architectures Debian ships on, until it also adds _fbss, _fdata and >> _ftext. I think my suggestion is reasonable: it fixes the very real >> problem, in a way which avoids expanding the scope of our ABI checker >> to include the implementation details of every linker/architecture >> pair that people use Wayland on. The cost of this is the probability >> that someone manages to add a new underscored symbol marked with >> WL_EXPORT into a library which is currently 105 LoC, and have no-one >> notice that in review. I think that's a reasonable tradeoff. > > I'm inclined to agree with Daniel here. > > Someone managing to sneak a WL_EXPORT on a symbol starting with a _ past > review seems reasonably unlikely. > > And after reading this thread I'm still not entirely sure we have a > complete list of what should be on that whitelist, and there are only a > limited number of systems I can test build on right now. > Sharing a few ideas that are less obvious. Having the partial list allows you to: - see active developers/users - be that by merging their patches or skimming through the report - have contact point for people with unusual platforms/setups - is fairly trivial newbie task ;-)
-Emil _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel