tfiala added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16736#340302, @tfiala wrote:
> In any event, the right fix here probably is to have displays of > matched/expected text for known-to-be binary data *not* try to print results > in the expect-string-match code since these are just going to have no way of > being valid. i.e. a test fix. I think we still want to keep the unicode decode guard in, as it could easily be something printing binary-based data like we had here, but the culprit under this is basically the method the test is using to verify binary data. http://reviews.llvm.org/D16736 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
