Assuming I'm sending a v4 of this patch out, should I add the explanation of the compiler-generated suffixes to the commit message or perhaps as a comment in the code?
Alex > -----Original Message----- > From: devel <devel-boun...@rtems.org> On Behalf Of Alex White > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 3:32 PM > To: Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org>; j...@rtems.org > Cc: rtems-de...@rtems.org <devel@rtems.org> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] covoar: Handle periods in symbols from objdump > > > I have lost of the context of why covoar would like to strip the > > suffixes and use only the base symbol name. Could you please explain > > why this is being done? > > Sure. The symbol names in the DWARF info never contain these suffixes. > > Covoar strips the suffixes while reading the objdump output so that the > symbol names match those found in the DWARF info. This ensures that the > proper coverage map is found when it looks up the symbol. > > Your question prompted me to look back at my code and realize that my > modification of ExecutableInfo::findCoverageMap() was unnecessary > because I already modified ObjdumpProcessor::load() to always strip the > symbol. The additional suffix handling code that I added to > findCoverageMap() will never be run. If only I had done coverage analysis on > the covoar tool itself... > > Looks like I'll be sending a v4 of this patch. :) > > Alex > _______________________________________________ > 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
