tfiala added a comment.
In fact I'd say you could do this, now that I've looked at the test:
diff --git
a/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/tools/lldb-server/TestGDBRemoteMemoryRead.py
b/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/tools/lldb-server/TestGDBRemoteMemoryRead.py
index 7b974e5..9f80abe 100644
---
a/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/tools/lldb-server/TestGDBRemoteMemoryRead.py
+++
b/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/tools/lldb-server/TestGDBRemoteMemoryRead.py
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ class MemoryReadTestCase(TestBase):
error = lldb.SBError()
memory = process.ReadMemory(pc, size, error)
self.assertTrue(error.Success())
- self.match("process plugin packet send x%x,%x" % (pc, size),
["response:", memory])
+ # self.match("process plugin packet send x%x,%x" % (pc, size),
["response:", memory])
self.match("process plugin packet send m%x,%x" % (pc, size),
["response:", binascii.hexlify(memory)])
process.Continue()
(i.e. comment out the direct memory compare with strings). That'll take a
little bit of work to re-work, but the 'm' hexlified version is sufficient for
verifying memory reads for now until we can rework the test to compare the
bytes directly instead of counting on print-style matches. You could comment
it out and file a bug on it to fix.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16736
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
