On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, 03:57 Cillian O'Donnell, <cpodonne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, 20:39 Vijay Kumar Banerjee, <vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> This is the log file that I'm getting after running the test >> >> I'm getting a lot of 'invalid' results , am I missing something ? >> > > What we had in coverage.py and test.py will need to be updated with Chris' > change to covoar. It's probably best not to run it with rtems-test until > we've revised that. We'll just be testing covoar by itself for the moment. > The focus will probably be on removing covoars dependency on external tools > next. > Understood > > Chris will we pass in the score ini to -S option now and then the other > options are picked up from there? (Excluding -p and -E). > >> >> after this patch along with with the c++ cleanup patch, we have to start >> working on parsing the coverage right? >> >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
