With the correct list this time.
Any time you’d like.
Thank you so much for doing this!
From: Alex Rosenberg <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: September 9, 2015 at 8:41:40 PM PDT
To: Davide Italiano <email@example.com>
Cc: llvm-commits <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Rafael Espindola <email@example.com>, James Grosbach <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Eric Christopher <email@example.com>, Kevin Enderby <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: macho-dump deprecation/removal plan
I'm happy to reduce the number of tools that reimplement the same concepts when possible. Many thanks for taking this on!
I do have some reservations about some of the rewritten tests that now use llvm-readobj. Most notably, the CHECK lines are now checking that the dump has not only the correct byte values, but also that the character representation of those byte values renders the same as well. For example, the SectionData elements in r247235. Nothing major to worry about, but I can picture a day where we obey locale differently or something and the rendering changes.
sorry for the belated answer but my client ate your e-mail.
I understand your concerns and I agree with them. I'll change CHECK
lines accordingly and send out a review. Do you have any other
Nope, that was my primary concern here.