labath added a comment. In D80150#2045364 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D80150#2045364>, @vsk wrote:
> @labath Agreed on all points, I've addressed the feedback in 82dbf4aca84 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG82dbf4aca84ec889d0dc390674ff44e30441bcfd> by > moving "DataFormatters/Mock.h" to "Plugins/Language/ObjC/Utilities.h", and > adding a separate LanguageObjCTests unit test. Cool. Thanks. ================ Comment at: lldb/unittests/DataFormatter/MockTests.cpp:30 + // Can't convert the date_value to a time_t. + EXPECT_EQ(formatDateValue(std::numeric_limits<time_t>::max() + 1), + llvm::None); ---------------- vsk wrote: > labath wrote: > > Isn't this actually `std::numeric_limits<time_t>::min()` (and UB due to > > singed wraparound) ? Did you want to convert to double before doing the > > `+1` ? > Yes, thank you! It looks like Eric caught this before I did. Actually, thinking about that further, (for 64-bit `time_t`s), `double(numeric_limits<time_t>::max())` is [[ https://godbolt.org/z/t3iSd7 | exactly the same value ]] as `double(numeric_limits<time_t>::max())+1.0` because `double` doesn't have enough bits to represent the value precisely. So, I have a feeling these checks are still not testing the exact thing you want to test (though I'm not sure what that is exactly). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D80150/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D80150 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
