[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201117154824.GY534@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 10:48:24 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: musl CI?
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 01:04:07PM +0100, Leah Neukirchen wrote:
> Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> writes:
>
> > The topic of CI for testing came up on #musl today, and although it's
> > not something I want to be responsible for running, it does sound very
> > good to have. We noted that libc-test currently has tests that are
> > failing and expected to fail, and that this is normal and not cause
> > for disabling tests, but it did suggest to me a methodology that seems
> > more appropriate than checking whether tests succeed: checking for
> > differences in test output (as well as other things, like symbol
> > table) vs suitable baselines like last release or last run.
>
> The tool abidiff from libabigail may be useful for that:
>
> https://sourceware.org/libabigail/manual/abidiff.html
I seem to recall it coming up before and finding it overkill. Not
objecting if anyone wants to setup something using it and can, but
IIRC nsz has a simple ABI dumper too based on C++ name mangling, and
just the symbol table itself (without any info on further ABI for the
symbols) can be done with nm -D.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
