uweigand added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18985#397674, @clayborg wrote:
> So many tests above are going to accept either a little endian or big endian > value. This will make most of these tests useless since if a little endian > machine fails with a big endian number we won't catch it and vice versa. So > we need to expect the correct value for little endian and a different but > correct one for big endian tests and only accept the correct one. The new version should address this. Each test now only accepts either the little-endian or big-endian result, depending on the target byte order. > Zero seems like a bad alternate value as it could cover up a real failure. > Can we improve this test so that we are testing for actual values? Or can we > change the test by endianness and test for 16777216 for little endian and > something else that is not zero for big endian? We don't want zero to be > valid for little endian tests. I've changed the test source value to use values such that none of the data elements tested by the test case is ever zero, neither on little-endian nor on big-endian. Tested on both System z and Intel to verify it still works with either byte order. http://reviews.llvm.org/D18985 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
