Hi, Here is the status of the rtems-tools patches I have sent out over the past few weeks (an X means the latest patch revision has been reviewed):
[ ] tester: Limit branch coverage percentage precision [ ] coverage: Fix option processing on FreeBSD [ ] coverage/symbol-sets.ini : Add libtrace [ ] covoar/Reports: Fix empty branch report [ ] covoar: Fix overflow of high PC address [ ] covoar: Catch exceptional case [ ] covoar: Add option to create named objdumps [X] covoar: Fix null pointer dereference [X] coverage: Give coverage bars red background [X] coverage/reports: Share common JS and CSS in reports [X] coverage/reports: Improve formatting and clarity [X] covoar/reports: Add new statistics to summary [ ] covoar: Handle periods in symbols from objdump [ ] covoar: Account for build path change [ ] covoar: Fix DWARF reading [ ] covoar/TargetBase: Fix QEMU branch info [ ] covoar/CoverageReaderQEMU: Fix infinite loop [ ] covoar/Target_arm: Add THUMB branch instructions [ ] covoar/Target_i386: Add NOP patterns [ ] covoar: Fix NOP execution marking [X] tester: Add coverage variants for a few BSPs [X] tester: Remove target from BSP coverage configs [X] tester: Update to support new build system [ ] covoar: Add aarch64 target [X] covoar/TargetBase: Rename branchInstructions to conditionalBranchInstructions [X] rld-process: Add named tempfile constructor [X] rld-dwarf: Fix file::get_source [X] rld-dwarf: Add function::has_entry_pc I sent these patches as a firehose, so I am not surprised that some didn't get a response. :) My plan is to resend the patches that have not been reviewed and meter them out so I don't overwhelm the list. Hopefully that will allow us to better work through this list. Is that ok? Thanks, Alex
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
