[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: I will add something to the devguide explaining how to do it. In any case, the RM should be ideally the one doing this because every potential ABI breakage need to be supervised by the RM (even if is a false positive). --

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

STINNER Victor added the comment: > the dump needs to be generated in a docker container using the same compiler > version that is used in the CI I'm not used to docker and I don't know how to get a docker similar than the one used by GitHub Action. Is there a documentation somewhere giving

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: You are using Fedora, which is not the same docker container and likely the same compiler version that is used to check the dump -- ___ Python tracker

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: As I mentioned here: https://bugs.python.org/msg390213 the dump needs to be generated in a docker container using the same compiler version that is used in the CI -- ___ Python tracker

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

STINNER Victor added the comment: I cannot merge my PR 25685 because the mandatory ABI CI job fails: --- abidiff "libpython3.9.so" ./Doc/data/python3.9.abi --drop-private-types --no-architecture --no-added-syms Functions changes summary: 0 Removed, 1 Changed, 0 Added function

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

STINNER Victor added the comment: > I got a false positive on my PR at > https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/25318/checks?check_run_id=2308871807 Oh, this CI failure was on Python 3.8. Since Python 3.9, Python is now built with -fvisibility=hidden to avoid exporting symbols which are

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Change by Pablo Galindo Salgado : -- pull_requests: +24127 pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/25394 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: I am going to revert the 3.9 PR as 3.9+ is hiding symbols by default. -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: > $ objdump -T /lib64/libpython3.10.so.1.0|grep > _Py_M__importlib_bootstrap_external # empty output This was happening on 3.8 Victor: root@d9c5942e274b:/src# objdump -T libpython3.8.so | grep _Py_M__importlib_bootstrap_external 00335740 g

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: > To skip ABI tests? I proposed to ignore ABI changes if they can be ignored > safely. But I don't know right now which changes can be ignored or not. As the situation stands we need to choose on keeping my changes to ignore _Py function changes or

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

STINNER Victor added the comment: > Ok, then we need to revert by latest 2 PRs and add a new label or something > to skip To skip ABI tests? I proposed to ignore ABI changes if they can be ignored safely. But I don't know right now which changes can be ignored or not. --

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: Ok, then we need to revert by latest 2 PRs and add a new label or something to skip -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

STINNER Victor added the comment: In a Python stable version, I would suggest to only ignore an ABI change after a manual validation .Otherwise, we can miss real issues. Well, I expect that at the beginning, we will discover many issues like _Py_M__importlib_bootstrap_external ;-)

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

STINNER Victor added the comment: > We could ignore all functions that start with _Py. Some symbols starting with _Py are indirectly part of the ABI. Example of Include/cpython/pyctype.h: #define Py_ISLOWER(c) (_Py_ctype_table[Py_CHARMASK(c)] & PY_CTF_LOWER) PyAPI_DATA(const unsigned int)

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

STINNER Victor added the comment: > Oh wow, that's terrible... yet another good reason not to export data values. _Py_M__importlib_bootstrap_external symbol doesn't seem to be exported. Why is it seen as a public symbol? $ objdump -T /lib64/libpython3.10.so.1.0|grep

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Steve Dower added the comment: Oh wow, that's terrible... yet another good reason not to export data values. But yeah, filtering on the name prefix should be fine. These aren't meant to be publicly accessible anyway. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Change by Pablo Galindo Salgado : -- pull_requests: +24058 pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/25323 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Change by Pablo Galindo Salgado : -- pull_requests: +24057 pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/25322 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: > Is there an option to exclude array lengths? Or to treat the API as just a > pointer rather than an array? Technically is not a false positive:

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Steve Dower added the comment: I got a false positive on my PR at https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/25318/checks?check_run_id=2308871807 1 Changed variable: [C]'const unsigned char[45154] const _Py_M__importlib_bootstrap_external' was changed to 'const unsigned char[43681] const

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: I started with two PRs against the 64 bits versions for 3.9 and 3.8. This *should* cover 32 bits as well (see previous messages), but if we want specific changes for that we need a 32 bit machine or cross-compilation, but I decided to start with

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Change by Pablo Galindo Salgado : -- pull_requests: +23969 pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/25232 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Change by Pablo Galindo Salgado : -- pull_requests: +23967 pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/25230 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: Yeah, I subscribe what Greg said. Let's start with *something* and let's improve upon. -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Gregory P. Smith added the comment: Ideally we'd analyze for a representative set of major platforms we ship binaries on. 32-bit and 64-bit Linux are a start, but we should assume that at least windows and linux toolchains may be different and toss in an additional CPU architecture as

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: If I understand correctly, this is analyzing the DWARF information on the binaries, so is quite coupled to the platform you compile to, but you can detect violations that affect other platforms if they share the same code. --

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Steve Dower added the comment: I assume it's only doing source analysis, so we can probably force those flags on for the check? Or run multiple checks with the options, but without having to switch platform. Even under MS_WINDOWS, I hope we're not using declarations from the Windows header

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Petr Viktorin added the comment: Not sure what platforms libabigail works on, but the set of stable ABI symbols is platform-specific. Currently it's affected by the MS_WINDOWS and HAVE_FORK defines. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: > Do we need separate jobs and ABI dumps for each platform and arch? I guess we > need at least separate dumps for 32 and 64bit. Not really, check what happened in my 64 build system when I did the changes that broke the ABI in the latest 3.9

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Christian Heimes added the comment: Do we need separate jobs and ABI dumps for each platform and arch? I guess we need at least separate dumps for 32 and 64bit. -- nosy: +christian.heimes ___ Python tracker

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

STINNER Victor added the comment: > Also, we can use libabigail. RHEL uses that to provide ABI guarantees on the kernel and the glibc. -- nosy: +vstinner ___ Python tracker

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: Ok, will create PRs for the release branches that are receiving fixes -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Steve Dower added the comment: Anything is better than nothing, from my POV. Let's get it running, tweak it, and if it doesn't work for us then take it down. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: Adding the rest of RM to evaluate the proposed solution -- nosy: +lukasz.langa, ned.deily, steve.dower ___ Python tracker ___

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: Ok, so seems that PR25188 works if the abi dump file for the "correct" version is generated with the same compiler that is used to check the ABI. I think this is acceptable if the workflow is: - As soon as a version is released, we generate in the

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Change by Pablo Galindo Salgado : -- keywords: +patch pull_requests: +23930 stage: needs patch -> patch review pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/25188 ___ Python tracker

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: Also, we can use libabigail. For instance: root@7a3947dec3d8:/pytho# abidiff Python-3.9.2/python Python-3.9.3/python Functions changes summary: 0 Removed, 3 Changed (53 filtered out), 0 Added functions Variables changes summary: 0 Removed, 0 Changed

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: For example, the tool generates this report for the two 3.9 versions (attached to the issue). -- Added file: https://bugs.python.org/file49935/compat_report.html ___ Python tracker

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: We could have a buildbot using https://github.com/lvc/abi-compliance-checker -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Gregory P. Smith added the comment: Indeed. In particular given the 3.9.3 issue I was assuming such a test should include asserting both the sizeof() ABI structs and offsetof() public members of all ABI structs. On each specific first class supported platform. This goes beyond what

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: This is probably complementary or in the avenue of https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0652/ -- nosy: +pablogsal, petr.viktorin ___ Python tracker

[issue43725] Create a release branch ABI stability regression test

New submission from Gregory P. Smith : In order to automate prevention of ABI regressions in stable releases, we could create an automated ABI stability test generator and check the specific ABI test it generates into each specific release branch. I'm envisioning the main branch only having