On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee <vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 30 May 2018 at 20:18, Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote: >> >> Hello Vijay, >> >> Do you expect/need an answer to something in here? >> >> gedare >> > Hello, > > I wanted to know if there were any plans on how covoar > should store the reports when running for multisets. > Earlier it used to be done by the coverage script, > after the recent changes covoar can process multi sets. > > I think, covoar should store the reports into separate directories > for each set . eg. score/ , rtems/ . As the coverage can already read > from separate directories. > > Any advice on how should it be approached ?
It would help me if you could draw/write a diagram of what the filesystem tree might look like with separate directories, and what will go in each subdirectory. I don't have enough context to give any useful advice on this question. -Gedare >> >> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee >> <vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On 30 May 2018 at 00:54, Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee >> >> <vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, 29 May 2018, 20:10 Joel Sherrill, <j...@rtems.org> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:08 PM, Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On 29/5/18 4:26 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: >> >>>>> > On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 5:43 AM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee >> >>>>> > <vijaykumar9...@gmail.com >> >>>>> > <mailto:vijaykumar9...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > Hello, >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > The coverage reports are now showing results. >> >>>>> > The current branch that holds all the changes is >> >>>>> > the cov-tester-support branch in my forked repo >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > https://github.com/thelunatic/rtems-tools/tree/cov-tester-support >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > <https://github.com/thelunatic/rtems-tools/tree/cov-tester-support> >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > (Please have a look into the code and test it.) >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > It is close to merging (hopefully). These are the issues >> >>>>> > that would need a fix before it can be merged : >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > 1. I have added some #FIXME in the code (have a look) >> >>>>> > in coverage script. I have set the value of the targe to >> >>>>> > be >> >>>>> > sparc-rtems5, which makes it limited to sparc-rtems5 only. >> >>>>> > We >> >>>>> > can >> >>>>> > include the target in the bsp ini file, That would >> >>>>> > be a quick fix for this. >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > Yes. This needs to be fixed. >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > My hack to add 4 in ObjdumpProcessor.cc needs to be addressed >> >>>>> > also. >> >>>>> > I am thinking of adding a method to Target_*.cc to ask for the >> >>>>> > size >> >>>>> > of an >> >>>>> > instruction. >> >>>>> > Then pass it the last instruction. That way we can throw on other >> >>>>> > architectures for >> >>>>> > now. If Chris solves this with his changes before we try another >> >>>>> > architecture, >> >>>>> > great. >> >>>>> > If not, it will be easy to fix. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> What is the overall requirement? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> To know the ending address of the function. >> >>>> >> >>>> Technically there are three pieces of information: >> >>>> >> >>>> + start address >> >>>> + end address >> >>>> + size >> >>>> >> >>>> If you know two of those, you can compute the third. >> >>>> >> >>>> I don't care if this comes from DWARF, ELF, or parsing the >> >>>> disassembly. >> >>>> It just needs to be reliable. >> >>>> >> >>>> And.. I am not proposing my solution as permanent. Just to keep us >> >>>> moving. You want to change to an internal disassembler (which >> >>>> would also need to have the source interspersed) and DWARF. So >> >>>> this code would go away then. >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> What defines the function and so size are attempting to get coverage >> >>>>> of? What if >> >>>>> that function calls an inline function and that function is inlined? >> >>>>> What if >> >>>>> that inlined function calls another inlined function? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Then it is all inlined. It is done consistently now. I have never >> >>>> seen a >> >>>> case >> >>>> where two instances of a method differed as the assembly level. [1] >> >>>> >> >>>> The actual body of the inlined method is evaluated at each expansion >> >>>> point. >> >>>> That is why a few years ago, I pushed hard to reduce the complexity >> >>>> of >> >>>> inline methods because we got test patch explosion when an inlined >> >>>> method >> >>>> included complex conditionals. >> >>>> >> >>>> Similarly, I think it would be helpful to coverage and verification >> >>>> efforts to >> >>>> follow the **shudder** MISRA rule which want you to write simple >> >>>> conditional >> >>>> expressions rather than compound ones. I have taken to writing code >> >>>> this >> >>>> way as much as possible. But haven't pushed it as a coding rule. >> >>>> >> >>>> if (a) { >> >>>> if (b) { >> >>>> do x; >> >>>> } >> >>>> } >> >>>> >> >>>> Versus >> >>>> if (a && b) { >> >>>> do x; >> >>>> } >> >>>> >> >>>> The reason is that the first is easier to analyse coverage on. >> >>>> >> >>>> [1] We both expect LTO could change this. >> >>>> >> >>>> [2] ESA did specifically mention this one though. Also in general >> >>>> terms, >> >>>> an RTEMS Project response to MISRA rules. Which ones we follow, >> >>>> reject, etc.. But I refuse to adopt hard rules which can't be >> >>>> enforced >> >>>> by free open source tools. >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The DWARF data provides details about the PC low and PC high of what >> >>>>> is >> >>>>> called >> >>>>> concrete functions and then it provides the details about inlines. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> We don't (currently) report on the inlines as independent methods. >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > 2. coverage used to feed ini file for each symbol to covoar >> >>>>> > in a loop and store the result in a separate directory >> >>>>> > for each symbol . Which is needed no more needed as >> >>>>> > covoar can now process multi sets from a >> >>>>> > single ini file. I think the results from covoar should >> >>>>> > be >> >>>>> > store in a separate directory for each symbol >> >>>>> > example :- score/ >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > A bit of history will help here. Originally covoar was run against >> >>>>> > a >> >>>>> > single set of >> >>>>> > code by the scripting framework. We would do coverage on either >> >>>>> > "core >> >>>>> > parts" >> >>>>> > or "developmental" (e.g. nearly all non-networked code). The >> >>>>> > optimization was >> >>>>> > either at -O2 or -Os. So there were four coverage variants. >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > Turned out that when we added something to "all", the percentage >> >>>>> > would drop >> >>>>> > and reflect badly on the rest of the code. I remember adding the >> >>>>> > dosfs and >> >>>>> > the coverage dropped almost 20 percent. >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > This led to the idea that we should report on a per >> >>>>> > directory/subsystem basis. >> >>>>> > The score, rtems, posix, sapi, and libcsupport should have high >> >>>>> > coverage now >> >>>>> > and the reports should reflect that independent of whether the >> >>>>> > dosfs >> >>>>> > needs a >> >>>>> > lot more tests. >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > Before each directory/subsystem required a completely separate run >> >>>>> > of >> >>>>> > covoar. >> >>>>> > If we are headed to a solution where one analysis run of covoar >> >>>>> > generates different >> >>>>> > reports, that should speed up the processing time a lot! >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > The other issue is what should the top directory look like/contain >> >>>>> > when a single >> >>>>> > run produces multiple subsystem reports. Seems like we would need >> >>>>> > at >> >>>>> > least a >> >>>>> > top level html and text file. >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > 3. currently we are using the leon3-qemu-cov as the bsp. >> >>>>> > Are we going to have two ini file for each bsp ? ( one >> >>>>> > without coverage >> >>>>> > and one with coverage support) >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > Earlier the approach was to include a section 'coverage' >> >>>>> > to the bsp ini to put the values we needed for coverage. >> >>>>> > I think that approach would be more "convenient" for the user. >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > This was something Chris suggested. I think it was to avoid adding >> >>>>> > to >> >>>>> > the bsp ini file until the code was closer to merging. >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > Chris.. what do you think? Long term, a section would be nice. >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Sorry I cannot remember without looking it up and I am currently >> >>>>> buried >> >>>>> in >> >>>>> family issues. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> OK. Having the Python scripting loop over the sets or covoar looping >> >>>> over them >> >>>> is an open issue. Historically, looping over desired symbol sets was >> >>>> outside >> >>>> covoar. So looping inside covoar may take some work. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> covoar can already loop over the >> >>> sets it seems, which is implemented >> >>> in DesiredSymbols. But it stores all the >> >>> reports generated from into the same directory. >> >> >> >> >> >> If there is an index that makes its possible to navigate through the >> >> different "subsystems", then that's the key thing. You don't want >> >> to think score is poorly covered due to dosfs. >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> P.S:Sorry for the previous mail with no message >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> --joel >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Chris >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >> >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > devel mailing list >> > devel@rtems.org >> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel