DavidSpickett added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
lldb/test/API/linux/aarch64/tls_registers/TestAArch64LinuxTLSRegisters.py:73
+
+ @skipUnlessArch("aarch64")
+ @skipUnlessPlatform(["linux"])
----------------
omjavaid wrote:
> These three tests have a lot of commonalities may be merge them into one
> testing the whole logic. Doesn't look like we are getting much out of
> emitting three tests from this fairly basic test class.
The tradeoff is execution time vs. a HWCAP check in the program file and a
bunch of ifs in Python.
Let me see what I can do, but I'm leaning toward the implementation complexity
outweighing the performance gained.
================
Comment at:
lldb/test/API/linux/aarch64/tls_registers/TestAArch64LinuxTLSRegisters.py:90
+ if self.isAArch64SME():
+ self.skipTest("SME must not be enabled.")
+
----------------
And speaking of words, let me change this skip reason to "not be present".
================
Comment at: lldb/test/API/linux/aarch64/tls_registers/main.c:37
+ case '2':
+ getter = get_tpidr2;
+ setter = set_tpidr2;
----------------
omjavaid wrote:
> It would be interesting to test reading/writing tpidr2 when SME is not
> enabled.
Not enabled, or not present? (I admit, these two words are used interchangeably
in places)
Not enabled is actually the state here, as there's no SMTART used here.
Architecture wise, I don't see anything to indicate it makes a difference if
SME is active or not.
Not present is covered by test_tpidr2_no_sme.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D154930/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D154930
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
