We are currently migrating Bugzilla to GitHub issues.
Any changes made to the bug tracker now will be lost, so please do not post new bugs or make changes to them.
When we're done, all bug URLs will redirect to their equivalent location on the new bug tracker.

Bug 4375

Summary: Possible ABI break between 2.0.8 and 2.0.9
Product: SDL Reporter: Javier Jardón <jjardon>
Component: *don't know*Assignee: Ryan C. Gordon <icculus>
Status: RESOLVED INVALID QA Contact: Sam Lantinga <slouken>
Severity: normal    
Priority: P2    
Version: 2.0.9   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   

Description Javier Jardón 2018-11-09 23:34:49 UTC
Hi,

trying to upgrade sdl2 from 2.0.8 to 2.0.9 in our project, we have discovered a possible ABI break.

Here what our tool has reported [1]:

```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ABI Break: libSDL2-2.0.so.0:libSDL2-2.0 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────┘

Functions changes summary: 0 Removed, 1 Changed (10 filtered out), 0 Added (29 filtered out) functions
Variables changes summary: 0 Removed, 0 Changed, 0 Added (5 filtered out) variables

1 function with some indirect sub-type change:

  [C]'function void SDL_AddEventWatch(SDL_EventFilter, void*)' at SDL_dynapi_procs.h:159:1 has some indirect sub-type changes:
    parameter 1 of type 'typedef SDL_EventFilter' has sub-type changes:
      underlying type 'int (void*, SDL_Event*)*' changed:
        in pointed to type 'function type int (void*, SDL_Event*)':
          parameter 2 of type 'SDL_Event*' has sub-type changes:
            in pointed to type 'typedef SDL_Event' at SDL_events.h:595:1:
              underlying type 'union SDL_Event' at SDL_events.h:525:1 changed:
                type size hasn't changed
                2 data member insertions:
                  'SDL_DisplayEvent SDL_Event::display' at SDL_events.h:561:1
                  'SDL_SensorEvent SDL_Event::sensor' at SDL_events.h:578:1

```

We suspect is a false positive, but we wanted to confirm with you first

[1] https://gitlab.com/freedesktop-sdk/freedesktop-sdk/merge_requests/652#note_113869091
Comment 1 Ryan C. Gordon 2018-11-10 00:51:38 UTC
My reading of that report is that we added new fields to a union (we did), but that the union’s size didn’t change (should be correct)...so I conclude this is a false positive.

Please reopen if I read this incorrectly!

--ryan.
Comment 2 Sam Lantinga 2018-11-12 21:56:35 UTC
Yup, that's correct.