From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 122975 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2017 16:52:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 122952 invoked by uid 89); 21 Sep 2017 16:52:04 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_INFOUSMEBIZ,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RDNS_DYNAMIC autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*M:info, H*F:D*info X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: void-ptr.info Received: from pppoe.185.44.68.223.lanport.ru (HELO void-ptr.info) (185.44.68.223) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 16:52:03 +0000 Received: from ptr by void-ptr.info with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1dv4hd-0004Jf-JK; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 19:51:53 +0300 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 16:52:00 -0000 From: Petr Ovtchenkov To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Matthias Klose , Simon Marchi , Pedro Alves , Matt Rice , Fiodar Stryzhniou , Andreas Schwab , Binutils , GDB Subject: Re: meaning of "Automatic date update in version.in" commits Message-ID: <20170921195153.4ed9f319@void-ptr.info> In-Reply-To: <20170921163358.twez7kbewucjalwi@adacore.com> References: <20170921135845.479dfc76@void-ptr.info> <024439c7-2083-d368-0138-2160e4494b81@redhat.com> <20170921152240.16bb4cc0@void-ptr.info> <8740f2a7-1300-3116-f34b-5487a8cd8b2b@redhat.com> <20170921161743.3ddc6bb9@void-ptr.info> <20170921184615.6b1e5d44@void-ptr.info> <426b9fdf-a854-6d5f-b296-df71ad0c1561@ubuntu.com> <20170921192619.412ff148@void-ptr.info> <20170921163358.twez7kbewucjalwi@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-09/txt/msg00086.txt.bz2 On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 09:33:58 -0700 Joel Brobecker wrote: > > Same date. From both commits I can build libbfd. From equality of > > dates stamped in the source not follow ABI compatibility. > > Plus > > > > git diff 0d8a80b95 7a261482f > > > > ---from different stamped dates not follow ABI incompatibility. > > The version number is completely different, however. I don't think > anyone is saying that the date is the unique element in determining > compatibility or not. It is evident for me. But in the discussion I see a lot of arguments, that I treat as "date stamp is used as ABI compatibility marker". The version string is different, yes. It assigned (at least I'm expect this) by human (i.e. not bot) that want mark ABI compatibility. [Under "version string" I mean here SONAME record of libbfd, because ABI version != lib version]. -- - ptr