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 <lab...@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@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 <dvlahov...@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@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 <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > lldb-commits mailing list > lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits > > _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
