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.