The report on API/ABI changes in the latest releases of libc++: API/ABI changes review for libc++
The same for libc++abi: API/ABI changes review for libc++abi
The reports are generated by the open-source abi-tracker tool and updated three times a week.
Hope it will be helpful for users and maintainers of the library.
This is really interesting, thanks!
I wonder why is the tool picking on comment changes on headers:
Thanks for the links! They look amazing. I’ll have to look into the tools used to generate them.
The report on API/ABI changes in the latest releases of libc++
Pedantically this just seems to report ABI changes, not non-ABI breaking API changes.
Do you have results for ToT libc++ (which contains a bunch of ABI changes)?
Detecting ABI breaking changes in libc++ is very important, and ideally should be done per-commit.
Currently we have very primitive ABI checking using the export list provided by
objdump, but I’m interested
in using these tools as well.
Comments may contain some meaningful information about the semantics of a function in the API. So all changes of comments are tracked.
The latest version of the library from Svn is added to the tracker: https://abi-laboratory.pro/tracker/timeline/libcxx/
The report is updated three times a week. Config file (library profile) for abi-tracker: https://github.com/lvc/upstream-tracker/blob/master/profile/libcxx.json
The offset of some function parameters has been changed according to analyzed debug info. But I’m not sure why? This case should be investigated properly (this may be a real problem or just a false positive).
Source compatibility report (with non-ABI breaking API changes) will be added on the next holidays.
03.12.2016, 09:49, “Eric Fiselier”:
The latest version of the library from Svn is added to the tracker:
API/ABI changes review for libc++
The report is updated three times a week. Config file (library profile)
for abi-tracker: https://github.com/lvc/upstream-tracker/blob/master/
Awesome Thanks! The ToT profile seems to be comparing to the 3.8 library as
opposed to the 3.9 library, is this correct?