ok
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 11:22 AM Alex White <alex.wh...@oarcorp.com> wrote:
>
> The `rangeIndex` variable is 1 higher than the index at which the first
> instruction address was found. This fixes the loop to set `rangeIndex`
> correctly.
> ---
> tester/covoar/ObjdumpProcessor.cc | 9 ++++-----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tester/covoar/ObjdumpProcessor.cc
> b/tester/covoar/ObjdumpProcessor.cc
> index 62a06c5..c2ed3d5 100644
> --- a/tester/covoar/ObjdumpProcessor.cc
> +++ b/tester/covoar/ObjdumpProcessor.cc
> @@ -52,13 +52,12 @@ namespace Coverage {
> throw rld::error( what, "Coverage::finalizeSymbol" );
> }
>
> - int rangeIndex;
> + int rangeIndex = -1;
> uint32_t lowAddress = UINT32_MAX;
> - for (rangeIndex = 0;
> - firstInstructionAddress != lowAddress;
> - rangeIndex++) {
> + do {
> + rangeIndex++;
> lowAddress = coverageMap.getLowAddressOfRange(rangeIndex);
> - }
> + } while (firstInstructionAddress != lowAddress);
>
> uint32_t sizeWithoutNops = coverageMap.getSizeOfRange(rangeIndex);
> uint32_t size = sizeWithoutNops;
> --
> 2.27.0
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
