omjavaid added a comment. In D75555#1909194 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75555#1909194>, @labath wrote:
> Yep, that test really shouldn't be doing that. Historically, lldb has been > avoiding architecture specific artifacts (like assembly) in its tests, but > that didn't really work out here. That test has become a nightmare of > architecture-specific assertions. > > If we're going to be testing assembly-level properties, we really should be > using assembly inputs. I have now rewritten it to use inline assembly to > guarantee a known sequence of instructions. I think the arm assembly is > correct (it compiles), but I don't have the hardware to try it on. > > @omjavaid, if you're able to test that locally, can you remove the skip > decorator and give this a spin? Otherwise, I can just remove the decorator > and watch the bot... Hi @labath thanks for the quick fix moving to inline assembly fixed this on AArch64 linux. I have removed skipIf decorators now. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D75555/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D75555 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
