[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r282683 - Add a unit test for an x86_64 assembly inspection of

[Pavel Labath via lldb-commits]

Note that the test fails when using gcc as a compiler (specifically gcc-4.9
in this case, but hopefully the exact version does not matter here).

Jason, will you be able to check this out today?

On 29 September 2016 at 05:45, Dimitar Vlahovski via lldb-commits <
lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> This is the first build that failed right after your CL:
> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-ubuntu-
> 14.04-cmake/builds/20083
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Dimitar Vlahovski <dvlahovski at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is the work that you are currently doing the reason why the lldb build on
>> i386 is failing?
>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-ubuntu-14.04-cmake
>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-ubuntu-14.04-
>> cmake/builds/20099
>>
>> Dimitar
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Jason Molenda via lldb-commits <
>> lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Good suggestions, thanks.  I'll fix those when I commit the 32-bit
>>> version of the same test.
>>>
>>> J
>>>
>>> > On Sep 28, 2016, at 9:28 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 9:10 PM Jason Molenda via lldb-commits <
>>> lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > +  EXPECT_TRUE(regloc.GetOffset() == -8);
>>> > This should be
>>> >
>>> > EXPECT_EQ(-8, regloc.GetOffset());
>>> >
>>> > That way if it fails, you'll get a handy error message that says:
>>> >
>>> > Expected: -8
>>> > Actual: -7
>>> >
>>> > If you use EXPECT_TRUE, it's not going to tell you the actual value.
>>> The same goes for many other places in the file.  Note that you're supposed
>>> to put the expected value *first*.  The test is the same either way
>>> obviously, but it affects the printing of the above message.
>>> >
>>> > +
>>> > +  // these could be set to IsSame and be valid -- meaning that the
>>> > +  // register value is the same as the caller's -- but I'd rather
>>> > +  // they not be mentioned at all.
>>> > +  EXPECT_TRUE(row_sp->GetRegisterInfo(k_rbp, regloc) == false);
>>> > +  EXPECT_TRUE(row_sp->GetRegisterInfo(k_r15, regloc) == false);
>>> > +  EXPECT_TRUE(row_sp->GetRegisterInfo(k_r14, regloc) == false);
>>> > +  EXPECT_TRUE(row_sp->GetRegisterInfo(k_r13, regloc) == false);
>>> > +  EXPECT_TRUE(row_sp->GetRegisterInfo(k_r12, regloc) == false);
>>> > +  EXPECT_TRUE(row_sp->GetRegisterInfo(k_rbx, regloc) == false);
>>> > If you're using EXPECT_TRUE and EXPECT_FALSE, I think it's more
>>> intuitive to not use the comparison operator.  The above is just
>>> >
>>> > EXPECT_FALSE(row_sp->GetRegisterInfo(k_rbx, regloc));
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> lldb-commits mailing list
>>> lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-commits mailing list
> lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20160929/641ec651/attachment-0001.html>