Aleksandar Markovic <[email protected]> writes:
>>> #./configure --enable-gcov >>> #make >>> #make check >>> #make coverage-report >>> >>> It seems that first three commands execute as expected. (For example, >>> there are plenty of files generated by "make check" that would've not >>> been generated if "enable-gcov" hadn't been chosen.) However, the >>> last command complains about some missing files related to FP > >> So your failure mode is no report is generated at all? It's working for >> me here. > > Alex, here is the thing: > > Seeing that my gcovr is relatively old (2014) 3.2 version, I upgraded it from > git repo to the most recent 4.1 (actually, to a dev version, from the very > tip of the tree), and "make coverage-report" started generating coverage > reports. It did emit some error messages (totally different than previous), > but still it did not stop like it used to do with gcovr 3.2. > > Perhaps you would want to add some gcov/gcovr minimal version info in our > docs. (or at least a statement "this was tested with such and such gcc, gcov > and gcovr", etc.?) > > Coverage report looked fine at first glance, but it a kind of > disappointed me when I digged deeper into its content - for example, > it shows very low coverage for our FP code (softfloat), while, in > fact, we know that "make check" contains detailed tests on FP > functionalities. But this is most likely a separate problem of a very > different nature, perhaps the issue of separate git repo for FP tests > (testfloat) that our FP tests use as a mid-layer. I get: 68.6 % 2593 / 3782 62.2 % 1690 / 2718 Which is not bad considering we don't exercise the 80 and 128 bit softfloat code at all (which is not shared by the re-factored 16/32/64 bit code). > > I'll try how everything works with my test examples, and will let you know. > > Your help is greatly appreciated, > Aleksandar > > Fond regards, > Aleksandar > > >> Alex Bennée -- Alex Bennée
