Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "maximum_operations_per_instruction".
2018 Mar 20
2
[RFC] Updating googletest to non-release tagged version
...or both independently, or the combination?
>>
>> Related aside: I've realised since earlier that there is scope for
>> version 2 tests, distinct from version 3: v2 tests test the lower
>> boundary on valid versions, and v3 the upper boundary on versions
>> without maximum_operations_per_instruction.
>>
>> The latter two test cases are important because a) the length field has
>> a different size for DWARF32/64 and therefore the prologue length needs
>> to be measured from a different point between the different formats, and
>> b) the contents of the prologue are...
2018 Mar 22
2
[RFC] Updating googletest to non-release tagged version
...gt;> >>
>> >> Related aside: I've realised since earlier that there is scope for
>> >> version 2 tests, distinct from version 3: v2 tests test the lower
>> >> boundary on valid versions, and v3 the upper boundary on versions
>> >> without maximum_operations_per_instruction.
>> >>
>> >> The latter two test cases are important because a) the length field has
>> >> a different size for DWARF32/64 and therefore the prologue length needs
>> >> to be measured from a different point between the different formats,
>> and...
2018 Mar 22
0
[RFC] Updating googletest to non-release tagged version
...r the combination?
> >>
> >> Related aside: I've realised since earlier that there is scope for
> >> version 2 tests, distinct from version 3: v2 tests test the lower
> >> boundary on valid versions, and v3 the upper boundary on versions
> >> without maximum_operations_per_instruction.
> >>
> >> The latter two test cases are important because a) the length field has
> >> a different size for DWARF32/64 and therefore the prologue length needs
> >> to be measured from a different point between the different formats, and
> >> b) the cont...
2018 Mar 20
0
[RFC] Updating googletest to non-release tagged version
...e test - the fact that it is v4, or DWARF64, or both
independently, or the combination?
Related aside: I've realised since earlier that there is scope for version
2 tests, distinct from version 3: v2 tests test the lower boundary on valid
versions, and v3 the upper boundary on versions without
maximum_operations_per_instruction.
The latter two test cases are important because a) the length field has a
different size for DWARF32/64 and therefore the prologue length needs to be
measured from a different point between the different formats, and b) the
contents of the prologue are different in each of version 3, 4, and 5, an...
2018 Mar 23
0
[RFC] Updating googletest to non-release tagged version
...>>> >> Related aside: I've realised since earlier that there is scope for
>>> >> version 2 tests, distinct from version 3: v2 tests test the lower
>>> >> boundary on valid versions, and v3 the upper boundary on versions
>>> >> without maximum_operations_per_instruction.
>>> >>
>>> >> The latter two test cases are important because a) the length field
>>> has
>>> >> a different size for DWARF32/64 and therefore the prologue length
>>> needs
>>> >> to be measured from a different point be...
2018 Mar 19
2
[RFC] Updating googletest to non-release tagged version
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:10 AM David Blaikie via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> +Chandler who might have some thoughts on this.
>
FWIW, I have no concerns about updating to a modern googletest. More modern
the better IMO if someone is willing to do the work to make sure it works
on all our platforms, etc.
However:
> Could you provide an example here of the