On 18/10/2022 02:17, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022, Jørgen Kvalsvik via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> This patch adds support in gcc+gcov for modified condition/decision
>> coverage (MC/DC) with the -fprofile-conditions flag.
>
> I'd love improvements in this area.
>
> But this is a ser
On Wed, 12 Oct 2022, Jørgen Kvalsvik via Gcc-patches wrote:
> This patch adds support in gcc+gcov for modified condition/decision
> coverage (MC/DC) with the -fprofile-conditions flag.
I'd love improvements in this area.
But this is a serious concern:
> gcov --conditions:
>
> 3: 17:vo
On 04/08/2022 09:43, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 02/08/2022 09:58, Jørgen Kvalsvik wrote:
>> Based on this established terminology I can think of a few good candidates:
>>
>> condition outcomes covered n/m
>> outcomes covered n/m
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> Both are fine, but I would prefer "cond
On 02/08/2022 09:58, Jørgen Kvalsvik wrote:
Based on this established terminology I can think of a few good candidates:
condition outcomes covered n/m
outcomes covered n/m
What do you think?
Both are fine, but I would prefer "condition outcomes covered n/m".
--
embedded brains GmbH
Herr Seba
On 15/07/2022 15:47, Jørgen Kvalsvik wrote:
> On 15/07/2022 15:31, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>> On 15.07.22 13:47, Jørgen Kvalsvik via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> 2. New vocabulary for the output - decisions for, well, the decisions. It
>>> also
>>> writes at most one line per condition:
>>>
>>> decis
On 15/07/2022 15:31, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 15.07.22 13:47, Jørgen Kvalsvik via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> 2. New vocabulary for the output - decisions for, well, the decisions. It
>> also
>> writes at most one line per condition:
>>
>> decisions covered 1/4
>> condition 0 not covered (tr
On 15.07.22 13:47, Jørgen Kvalsvik via Gcc-patches wrote:
2. New vocabulary for the output - decisions for, well, the decisions. It also
writes at most one line per condition:
decisions covered 1/4
condition 0 not covered (true false)
condition 1 not covered (true)
Do
On 15/07/2022 13:39, Jørgen Kvalsvik wrote:
> This patch adds support in gcc+gcov for modified condition/decision
> coverage (MC/DC) with the -fprofile-conditions flag.
Hello,
I have updated this patch based on the feedback from Sebastian and Martin.
1. The description of the masking_vector func
On 12/07/2022 16:05, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Hello Jørgen,
>
> thanks for the updated patch. I used it for a test suite run and the results
> look quite good.
>
> Could you please add this hunk to your patch set:
>
> diff --git a/libgcc/libgcov-merge.c b/libgcc/libgcov-merge.c
> index 89741f637
Hello Jørgen,
thanks for the updated patch. I used it for a test suite run and the
results look quite good.
Could you please add this hunk to your patch set:
diff --git a/libgcc/libgcov-merge.c b/libgcc/libgcov-merge.c
index 89741f637e1..9e3e8ee5657 100644
--- a/libgcc/libgcov-merge.c
+++ b/l
On 08/07/2022 15:45, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Hello Jørgen,
>
> some time passed. It would be nice if you could give a status update. I am
> quite
> interested in your work.
>
> Best regards,
> Sebastian
>
I'm sorry for the late updates. There have have been a lot of issues (with the
patch
Hello Jørgen,
some time passed. It would be nice if you could give a status update. I
am quite interested in your work.
Best regards,
Sebastian
--
embedded brains GmbH
Herr Sebastian HUBER
Dornierstr. 4
82178 Puchheim
Germany
email: sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
phone: +49-89-18 94 7
On 22/04/2022 07:37, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>
>
> On 17/04/2022 13:27, Jørgen Kvalsvik wrote:
>>> In theory, would it be possible to print the state of the truth table with
>>> the
>>> information available in the gcda and gcno files? For example:
>>>
>>> Truth table for: a && (b || c)) && d
>>>
On 17/04/2022 13:27, Jørgen Kvalsvik wrote:
In theory, would it be possible to print the state of the truth table with the
information available in the gcda and gcno files? For example:
Truth table for: a && (b || c)) && d
0 | 1 | 2 | 3 || covered
--+---+---+---++
0 | X | X | X || Y
On 07/04/2022 14:04, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 3/28/22 16:40, Jørgen Kvalsvik via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> ... And with another tiny change that fixes Martin's while (1); case.
>
> Hello.
>
> Back to this ;) Thank you for the updated version of the patch. I have a
> couple
> of comments/requests:
S
On 06/04/2022 09:35, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Ok, for the default output this is good. The output can be explained in the
> documentation. I will try to help here.
Splendid, thanks! I would be perfectly happy with better and/or more intuitive
messages too, but I figured it shouldn't delay the rest
On 08/04/2022 09:33, Jørgen Kvalsvik wrote:
On 08/04/2022 09:28, Jørgen Kvalsvik wrote:
On 07/04/2022 18:53, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Hello Jørgen,
there could be an issue with conditions in for loops:
3: 189: for (int a = 0; a <= 1; ++a) {
branch 0 taken 2
branch 1 taken 1 (fallth
Hello Jørgen,
there could be an issue with conditions in for loops:
3: 189: for (int a = 0; a <= 1; ++a) {
branch 0 taken 2
branch 1 taken 1 (fallthrough)
conditions covered 0/2
condition 0 not covered (true)
condition 0 not covered (false)
--
embedded brains GmbH
Herr Sebastian H
On 3/28/22 16:40, Jørgen Kvalsvik via Gcc-patches wrote:
... And with another tiny change that fixes Martin's while (1); case.
Hello.
Back to this ;) Thank you for the updated version of the patch. I have a couple
of comments/requests:
1) I noticed the following cannot be linked:
$ cat erro
On 05/04/2022 22:07, Jørgen Kvalsvik wrote:
In action it looks pretty similar to the branch coverage. The -g short
opt carries no significance, but was chosen because it was an available
option with the upper-case free too.
gcov --conditions:
3: 17:void fn (int a, int b, int c, int
Hello Jørgen,
On 04/04/2022 10:14, Sebastian Huber wrote:
It seems that support for the new GCOV_TAG_CONDS is missing in gcov-tool
and gcov-dump, see "tag_table" in gcc/gcov-dump.c and
libgcc/libgcov-util.c.
it seems that for gcov-tool no changes are necessary. You added the
condition bit fi
Hello Jørgen,
having support for MC/DC coverage in GCC would be really nice. I tried
out your latest patch on an arm cross-compiler with Newlib (inhibit_libc
is defined). Could you please add the following fix to your patch:
diff --git a/libgcc/libgcov-merge.c b/libgcc/libgcov-merge.c
index 8
On 3/25/22 20:44, Jørgen Kvalsvik wrote:
Hello, and thanks for the review!
1) Do I correctly understand that __conditions_accu_true/false track
every short-circuit sub-expression of a condition and record
if a given sub-expr is seen to be true or false?
Sort-of. It is not really aware of sub-
On 3/21/22 12:55, Jørgen Kvalsvik via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hello.
Thanks for very interesting extension of the existing GCOV profiling.
I briefly read the patch and investigated what happens and I've got various
questions/comments about it:
1) Do I correctly understand that __conditions_accu_tru
24 matches
Mail list logo
