jarin added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/tools/lldb-server/registers-target-xml-reading/TestGdbRemoteTargetXmlPacket.py:69
+ self.assertEqual(q_info_reg["offset"], xml_info_reg.get("offset"))
+ self.assertEqual(q_info_reg["encoding"],
xml_info_reg.get("encoding"))
----------------
Why don't you test all the fields here?
================
Comment at:
lldb/source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteCommunicationServerLLGS.cpp:2814
+ if (!encoding.empty())
+ response.Printf("encoding=\"%s\" ", encoding.str().c_str());
+
----------------
labath wrote:
> Similarly, `response << "encoding='" << encoding << "' "`, or
> `response.Format("encoding='{0}'", encoding)` would be shorter, and avoid
> string copying.
Nit: Now it is a funny mixture of operator<<, Printfs and PutCString. Is there
a reason not to use << for everything? (I guess PutHex8 can't be easily done
with <<, but everything else can?)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D74217/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D74217
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
