On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 9:10 PM Jason Molenda via lldb-commits < lldb-commits@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@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
