On 1 June 2018 at 20:30, Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee > <vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 1 June 2018 at 19:24, Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 2:46 AM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee > >> <vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Here's the list of Ideas for improvements: > >>> > >>> 1. Include the section coverage in the bsp config file. > >>> If the section is not found then the script will show > >>> proper error showing coverage is not supported for the > >>> provided bsp config file. > >>> > >>> 2. Update covoar to add support for separate coverage report > >>> for each symbol set. > >>> > >>> 3. Add a method somewhere in covoar to get the size of an instruction > >>> and fix the hard coded size 4 in ObjdumpProcessor.cc > >> > >> > >> What about a single XXX_run command? What about that suggestion? > >> > > The suggestion was to turn test_run and coverage_run into a single > command. > > I have kept them separate so that there's a possibility to just run the > > test. > > > > If we want to run coverage everytime we run the test. we can do it. > > Then I think the --coverage option can be changed to --coverage-sets > > to mention the sets. > > If that's what we're looking for then I don't think a separate ticket is > > needed, > > I can try to do it within tomorrow and submit an updated patch. > > > >> > >> Will there be an update to this patch? > >> > > This patch is working an showing results. I don't have any work > > going related to this patch currently. > > If there are any suggestions, I'll try to include all the suggested > updates > > as soon as possible and submit. So that we can get it merged. > > > > I get confused by the similarity between test_run() and coverage_run() > names, and now I'm also seeing some confusion because there is a > function coverage_run() and a class coverage_run. I suggest you remove > this function coverage_run(), and make either coverage_run.__init__() > or coverage_run.run() take the executables as a parameter directly. > > Thank you for the suggestion. :) I have removed the function and taken executables as a parameter in coverage_run.__init__()
I have a question. The ini file that is fed to covoar is written by the script according to the symbols mentioned by the user. I haven't include the ini file in the patch. I'm planning to delete the file after the run, unless --no-clean option is given, which currently deletes the .cov trace files after the run. Can I proceed with this ? also, shall I include that in the .gitignore ? > -Gedare >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
