bryanpkc added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20355#434117, @labath wrote:
> Do you have commit access? Yes I do. Thanks for your review! ================ Comment at: unittests/Core/ScalarTest.cpp:90 @@ +89,3 @@ + ASSERT_TRUE(s_scalar.ExtractBitfield(0, 0)); + ASSERT_EQ(0, memcmp(&a1, s_scalar.GetBytes(), sizeof(a1))); + ASSERT_TRUE(s_scalar.ExtractBitfield(len, 0)); ---------------- labath wrote: > Is there a reason this couldn't be written as `ASSERT_EQ(a1, > s_scalar.SLongLong())` ? > If there isn't one, I think this would make the check more readable. SLongLong() invokes sextOrTrunc() and getSExtValue(), potentially further changing the contents of the underlying m_integer. I felt that checking with memcmp() immediately after ExtractBitfield() is a more fool-proof way to confirm the behaviour of ExtractBitfield(). There are precedents for using memcmp() in the file, and it is not that much more unreadable. http://reviews.llvm.org/D20355 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
