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

[Jason Molenda via lldb-commits]

Yep, will do.  I saw that build bot result last night and ran the testsuite on my local ubuntu box and didn't repo the failure so I thought maybe it was an already-failing test case that the bot was just telling me about.  But I think I was running the test x86_64 - I'll figure out how to run it i386 and look into it.

> On Sep 29, 2016, at 5:56 AM, Pavel Labath <labath at google.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
>