labath added a comment. Yep, that test really shouldn't be doing that. Historically, lldb has been avoiding architecture specific artifacts (like assembly) in its tests, but that didn't really work out here. That test has become a nightmare of architecture-specific assertions.
If we're going to be testing assembly-level properties, we really should be using assembly inputs. I have now rewritten it to use inline assembly to guarantee a known sequence of instructions. I think the arm assembly is correct (it compiles), but I don't have the hardware to try it on. @omjavaid, if you're able to test that locally, can you remove the skip decorator and give this a spin? Otherwise, I can just remove the decorator and watch the bot... Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D75555/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D75555 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
