Ahh yea I missed that. Makes sense
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:38 PM Siva Chandra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:21 PM Siva Chandra
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Zachary Turner
> wrote:
> >> > Why though?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:21 PM Siva Chandra wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
>> > Why though?
>>
>> Foremost, I think it is because the lldb driver built as part of the
>> test is linked to the host lld
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:21 PM Siva Chandra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
> > Why though?
>
> Foremost, I think it is because the lldb driver built as part of the
> test is linked to the host lldb shared library. If you build a 32-bit
> driver, we will need a 32-
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
> Why though?
Foremost, I think it is because the lldb driver built as part of the
test is linked to the host lldb shared library. If you build a 32-bit
driver, we will need a 32-bit lldb shared library as well is it not?
Second, which I thin
Why though? Unless the test explicitly doesn't work on x86 architecture
because it uses some unsupported feature, why skip it? If that were truly
the reason, then we could just make the entire test suite disable support
for i386.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:08 PM Siva Chandra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
wrote:
> Why is this marked @skipIfI386? I don't see anything i386 specific about
> this test. Can this decorator be removed?
I think skipping for i386 is only because most developers are using
64-bit hosts for development. [Heck, even
Why is this marked @skipIfI386? I don't see anything i386 specific about
this test. Can this decorator be removed?
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
