On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 13:00:14 (CEST), Adrian Knoth wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 08:25:43AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>
>> > /*
>> > * NOTE: JACK_WEAK_EXPORT ***MUST*** be used on every function
>> > * added to th
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 08:25:43AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > /*
> > * NOTE: JACK_WEAK_EXPORT ***MUST*** be used on every function
> > * added to the JACK API after the 0.116.2 release.
> > *
> > * Functio
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 00:13:59 (CEST), Adrian Knoth wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 05:55:52PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>
>> I've looked a bit into the hiding thing... and jack2 seems to export 2
>> kinds of symbols. It exports weak symbols (the standard API), and
>> exports several other s
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 23:25:25 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote:
>>> We only _assume_ JACK API to be stable - yet we track upstream VCS so
>>> should not be certain IMO.
>>
>> The jack API as defined by the doxygen documentation is AFAIUI fairly
>> stable. The exported ABI seems not.
>
> The _intend
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 05:55:52PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> I've looked a bit into the hiding thing... and jack2 seems to export 2
> kinds of symbols. It exports weak symbols (the standard API), and
> exports several other symbols as default visibility. I'm guessing that
Have you seen this
I've looked a bit into the hiding thing... and jack2 seems to export 2
kinds of symbols. It exports weak symbols (the standard API), and
exports several other symbols as default visibility. I'm guessing that
the default symbols are part of the libjackserver API, but for some
reason some of them are
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 17:22, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> We only _assume_ JACK API to be stable - yet we track upstream VCS so
>> should not be certain IMO.
>
> The jack API as defined by the doxygen documentation is AFAIUI fairly
> stable. The exported ABI seems not.
The _intended_ exported ABI
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 21:17:58 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I agree that the *switch* from 1.1.x to 1.9.x is noisy, I raised that as
> a concern, Reinhard have checked it out and judged it as not worrying,
> and I am satisfied with that.
It seems we are miscommunicating, I don't remember su
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 15:17, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 01:24:23PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:50, Reinhard Tartler
>
>>> For jack, I think the amount of symbol files is just too much ATM. First,
>>> I'd strongly suggest to hide the symbols
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 01:24:23PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:50, Reinhard Tartler
For jack, I think the amount of symbol files is just too much ATM.
First, I'd strongly suggest to hide the symbols.
I agree here. Symbol tracking does not make sense when the signa
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 19:24:23 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> For C++ libraries, I don't see any point in using symbol files until
>> dpkg-gensyms understands unmangled symbols. Working on demangled symbol
>> is just too painful IMO.
>
> According to bug #563752, dpkg-gensyms understands them.
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:50, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 18:11:39 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:34:37PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>>>On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 13:06:18 (CEST), Adrian Knoth wrote:
>>>
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 07:29:51A
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 18:11:39 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:34:37PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>>On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 13:06:18 (CEST), Adrian Knoth wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 07:29:51AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>>>
Can someone flu
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:34:37PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 13:06:18 (CEST), Adrian Knoth wrote:
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 07:29:51AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Can someone fluent in C/C++ please look at this? Perhaps you,
Adrian, since you seem most
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 13:06:18 (CEST), Adrian Knoth wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 07:29:51AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>
>> Can someone fluent in C/C++ please look at this? Perhaps you, Adrian,
>> since you seem most knowledgeable in JACK around here?
>> I think I qualify.
>
>
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 07:29:51AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Can someone fluent in C/C++ please look at this? Perhaps you, Adrian,
> since you seem most knowledgeable in JACK around here?
> I think I qualify.
I'm not sure if I do. ;) Never used the debian symbol files...
> Anot
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 07:29:51AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Can someone fluent in C/C++ please look at this? Perhaps you,
Adrian, since you seem most knowledgeable in JACK around here?
Adrian, is there a jackd ABI definition? What symbols are supposed to be
exposed by libjack? I suppose
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 01:11:20 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 14:33, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 01:37:27PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:56, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I have now switched JACK packaging to
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 14:33, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 01:37:27PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:56, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>>
>>> I have now switched JACK packaging to use symbols files, to automate
>>> tracking of ABI changes.
>>>
>>> The
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:56, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have now switched JACK packaging to use symbols files, to automate
> tracking of ABI changes.
>
> The switch from 0.118 to 1.9.5 causes breakage in that automated tracking,
> however.
>
> Can someone fluent in C/C++ please look at
Hi,
I have now switched JACK packaging to use symbols files, to automate
tracking of ABI changes.
The switch from 0.118 to 1.9.5 causes breakage in that automated
tracking, however.
It might be that there are some ABI breakaage after all, but possibly it
is just private symbols not detecte
21 matches
Mail list logo
