On May 19, 2025, at 10:17, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
> Well, normally (if there are no problematic ABI changes) the report will be empty. So I wouldn't spend too much time
onthe formatting. If there is a violation, you can just show the raw abidiff output inside <pre> or whatever.
Interesting point, though it looks like maybe the output doesn’t work that way? In his second post, Mankirat linked to
theoutput from abidiff[1] and abicc[2] comparing 17.2 to 17.3. The latter is HTML, but abidiff’s plan is pretty
straightforwardtext that reports a bunch of changes. I imagine it’ll need some massaging to determine which are proper
ABIbreaks.
Mankirat, did you try it with 17.0 to 17.1? That would be interesting, as there was an ABI break in 17.1[3].
> Generally, this looks like the right direction.
>
> As an additional tip, check the Python source code, they are doing something like that with libabigail as well.
Ooh, good to know, thanks!
D
[1]: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EFW2BHsRglAuNTjF6DpizRiX8iSNBsaN/view
[2]: https://abicc-17-2-17-3-postgres.mankiratsingh.com/
[3]: https://www.enterprisedb.com/blog/explaining-abi-breakage-postgresql-171
