On 19 May 2018 at 03:29, Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee < > vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, 19 May 2018, 03:06 Joel Sherrill, <j...@rtems.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 4:01 PM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee < >>> vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 19 May 2018 at 02:29, Vijay Kumar Banerjee <vijaykumar9...@gmail.com >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 19 May 2018 at 01:30, Cillian O'Donnell <cpodonne...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 18 May 2018, 14:55 Vijay Kumar Banerjee, < >>>>>> vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 18 May 2018 at 19:09, Cillian O'Donnell <cpodonne...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 May 2018, 12:36 Vijay Kumar Banerjee, < >>>>>>>> vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 18 May 2018 at 12:30, Cillian O'Donnell <cpodonne...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Cool, you should run it for the full testsuite and take a look at >>>>>>>>>> that report (takes a while.. around 575 tests) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> When I try to run the full testsuites it gives the following >>>>>>>>> error . What could be causing this ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you run the full testsuite without the coverage options, does it >>>>>>>> still happen? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> No it seems to run fine without coverage. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I vaguely remember seeing this before last year, I suspect that when >>>>>> things are cleared up in coverage.py it will dissappear. So don't worry >>>>>> about it for now, carry on with what you're doing. What branch are you >>>>>> working on at the moment? >>>>>> >>>>> The path to build directory from the executable path is working now ! >>>>> >>>>> I'm working in this branch currently, I'll send a patch to all of it >>>>> together when it starts working. >>>>> >>>> I meant to say once the parsing of ini file starts working. the path to >>>> build directory is already working. >>>> >>>>> Please have a look and also suggest improvements where applicable . >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/thelunatic/rtems-tools/tree/cov-tester-support. >>>>> >>>>> after this update, running it on full testsuits doesn't give that >>>>> error anymore but it has some other issue. The report doesn't shows data >>>>> only for samples even after running it for full testsuites >>>>> >>>> >>> Do you have coverage output on all the tests? >>> >> I have coverage output on tests under samples/ only . >> running it for the whole testsuits gives the same coverage output as with >> samples/ >> >>> >>> Is the verbose output indicating that all the tests are being looped >>> over? >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> and I'm getting this error : >>>>> >>>>> ----- >>>>> ERROR==> Different lengths for the symbol CSWTCH.1 (16 and 544) >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> Cillian must want to purge all memory of this type of message. :) >>> >>> This message indicates that a symbol of interest (e.g. a function) has >>> one length >>> in one executable file and a completely different one in a second. >>> Cillian worked >>> on one of these last summer which was because the method was padded with >>> a different number of nops in each executable. That was supposed to be >>> handled >>> by covoar but he found a nasty bug. >>> >>> This particular one looks like it is for a GCC generated symbol which >>> should >>> have been ignored in the symbols of interest. My bet is that the way we >>> formerly >>> got the DesiredSymbols only got real methods. The new way must also be >>> picking up some "local" symbols that gcc is generating. >>> >>> If we know either of those executables, we should be able to look at the >>> symbol table with nm and figure out what Chris is pulling in that he >>> shouldn't. >>> >>> Is this a fatal error or just a "give up" on this symbol in this >>> executable? >>> >> it doesn't break in the middle. Coverage does run but the report doesn't >> look proper >> > > This is an auto-generated symbol by gcc which will be in the middle of a > method. > DesiredSymbols should be ignoring symbols like this. I don't think seeing > them > will cause a horrible problem but it is quite likely that the method(s) > these are > seen in will have quite incorrect results. > > If running on samples looks OK, try running coverage from just tmtests and > see if that is better. You need to find a set small enough to trip the > problem > but easy to analyse. > Coverage from tmtests looks OK . psxtmtests , psxtests, libtests gives the same error and doesn't show proper coverage report.
Also, I can see these INFO lines even with the ones that are showing proper coverage output -------------- INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for CSWTCH.1 because the sizes are different INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for _Thread_queue_Operations_default because the sizes are different INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for CSWTCH.1 because the sizes are different INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for _Thread_queue_Operations_default because the sizes are different INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for hex2ascii_data because the sizes are different INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for CSWTCH.1 because the sizes are different INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for _Thread_queue_Operations_default because the sizes are different INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for _Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_error because the sizes are different INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for hex2ascii_data because the sizes are different INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for CSWTCH.1 because the sizes are different INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for _Thread_queue_Operations_default because the sizes are different INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for _Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_error because the sizes are different INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for CSWTCH.1 because the sizes are different INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for _Thread_queue_Operations_default because the sizes are different INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for _Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_error because the sizes are different INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for CSWTCH.1 because the sizes are different INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for _Thread_queue_Operations_default because the sizes are different INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for _Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_error because the sizes are different INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for hex2ascii_data because the sizes are different INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for CSWTCH.1 because the sizes are different INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for _Thread_queue_Operations_default because the sizes are different INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for _Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_error because the sizes are different INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for hex2ascii_data because the sizes are different Coverage run for score finished successfully. ----------------------------------------------- > --joel > > >> >>> --joel >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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
