teemperor added inline comments.
================
Comment at: unittests/Utility/StreamTest.cpp:38-41
+TEST_F(StreamTest, ChangingByteOrder) {
+ s.SetByteOrder(lldb::eByteOrderPDP);
+ EXPECT_EQ(lldb::eByteOrderPDP, s.GetByteOrder());
+}
----------------
labath wrote:
> <musing> I've been wondering for a while whether we shouldn't just remove PDP
> byte order support. Most of our code doesn't really support it, and neither
> does llvm's, so this is kind of a prerequisite for switching to llvm streams.
> </musing>
I support this notion. think most of LLDB's algorithms do not respect PDP
ordering.
================
Comment at: unittests/Utility/StreamTest.cpp:56
+ s.PutChar('\n');
+ EXPECT_EQ(" \n", Value());
+
----------------
labath wrote:
> How do you feel about changing `Value` to call `Clear` on the underlying
> StreamString after fetching the string (and maybe renaming it to `TakeValue`
> or something)? That way, you could easily test the string printed by a
> specific function, instead of having to accumulate the expectations.
Sounds good to me, makes it definitely more readable.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50027
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
