Allow class_resilience to pass on 32-bit machines #1251
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The test checks pointer values which are often bit-width dependant. This change permits the test to match in both 32 and 64-bit architectures.
Contributor
|
Thanks! |
slavapestov
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 10, 2016
Allow class_resilience to pass on 32-bit machines
modocache
added a commit
to modocache/swift
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 17, 2016
This protocol resilience test passes on Linux 64-bit, but not Linux ARM, for the same reason as swiftlang#1251. Fix the test for Linux ARM by allowing both bit-widths.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The test checks pointer values which are often bit-width dependant. This change permits the test to match in both 32 and 64-bit architectures. See discussion here: #1157 (comment) specifically #1157 (comment) by @slavapestov