On 20 March 2018 at 15:09, Derek Foreman <der...@osg.samsung.com> wrote: > On 2018-03-20 10:02 AM, Emil Velikov wrote: >> 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 > > I don't imagine we'll be adding new API to that library frequently > enough to mine that data productively. > I am talking about the C runtime symbols.
>> - have contact point for people with unusual platforms/setups > > By defaulting to a broken build state for unusual platforms, do you > really think we'll attract many contact points? > Quite a serious typo here - s/build/check/. From experience - yes, you will. >> - is fairly trivial newbie task ;-) > > I don't think we should be going out of our way to generate problems for > newbies to solve. There are plenty of worthwhile tasks for new > participants already. > Might want to make the list more obvious. I've been [sort of] around and haven't seen any. > I've confirmed that we once again pass make check on arm (something I > really should've done prior to the beta release. sigh.) and have pushed > this patch. > You can never have 'enough' tests before a release ;-) -Emil _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel