It sounds like great progress is being made but this thread is very long and I am losing track of what needs committing.
Plus there is Chris' work to merge as well. How close is everything to moving back to master on the main repo? On Sun, May 27, 2018, 2:13 PM Vijay Kumar Banerjee <vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 28 May 2018, 00:32 Cillian O'Donnell, <cpodonne...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, 27 May 2018, 19:59 Vijay Kumar Banerjee, < >> vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> The support for letting users input specific symbols >>> for coverage analysis is now working in my >>> cov-tester-support branch >>> >>> https://github.com/thelunatic/rtems-tools/tree/cov-tester-support >>> >> >> Brilliant Vijay, I'll take a look today or tomorrow. >> > Thanks. > yeah, whenever you have time. > > I want to propose a covoar update. > After the recent updates to covoar > it can run multiple sets from a single ini file. Earlier the build > directory was fed from the coverage script along with the set name. Which > doesn't seem to be needed anymore. > Can the support for storing the results of each symbol into a separate > folder be shifted to covoar ? > (Can covoar already do it ? I think no because the result directory with > set name is fed to covoar from the script) > > > >> >>> >>> Please have a look into the code and test it. >>> >>> The user can input specific symbols with the --coverage >>> option to run covoar on specific symbols >>> >>> example :- >>> >>> --coverage=symbol1,symbol2,symbol3 >>> >>> if no argument is provided then coverage will run for >>> all the symbols given in the symbol-sets.ini file . >>> >>> >>>
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
