Apparently these have existed since this code was written. I just ran into them while writing a one-off tool that didn't bother to use a resolver.
LGTM. http://breakpad.appspot.com/257001/diff/1/6 File src/processor/stackwalker_arm_unittest.cc (right): http://breakpad.appspot.com/257001/diff/1/6#newcode148 Line 148: EXPECT_TRUE(memcmp(&raw_context, &frame->context, sizeof(raw_context)) == 0); EXPECT_EQ instead? http://breakpad.appspot.com/257001/diff/1/8 File src/processor/stackwalker_x86_unittest.cc (right): http://breakpad.appspot.com/257001/diff/1/8#newcode149 Line 149: EXPECT_TRUE(memcmp(&raw_context, &frame->context, sizeof(raw_context)) == 0); EXPECT_EQ?
http://breakpad.appspot.com/257001/diff/1/6 File src/processor/stackwalker_arm_unittest.cc (right): http://breakpad.appspot.com/257001/diff/1/6#newcode148 Line 148: EXPECT_TRUE(memcmp(&raw_context, &frame->context, sizeof(raw_context)) == 0); On 2011/01/24 19:15:44, Mark Mentovai wrote: > EXPECT_EQ instead? I copy/pasted these from elsewhere in the file. I'll fix them all.