[PATCH] covoar.cc: Correct build path checks for multiple executables.
Vijay Kumar Banerjee
vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com
Mon May 21 19:12:15 UTC 2018
On 22 May 2018 at 00:33, Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, May 21, 2018, 1:54 PM Vijay Kumar Banerjee <
> vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 21 May 2018 at 23:07, Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 21, 2018, 12:01 PM Vijay Kumar Banerjee <
>>> vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21 May 2018 at 21:42, Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee <
>>>>> vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 21 May 2018 at 20:37, Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee <
>>>>>>> vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 21 May 2018 at 17:39, Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> CPU-rtems5-objdump
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sparc-rtems5-objdump worked , thanks .
>>>>>>>> I can see some mismatches in the disassembly .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm building sparc now. What mismatches do you see?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I started another thread for CSWTCH.*. That's not the type of
>>>>>>> mismatch Cillian
>>>>>>> worked on last summer. It is a symbol that isn't even code and
>>>>>>> shouldn't be
>>>>>>> in the symbol set.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I saw the other thread . In sparc I'm getting CSWTCH.* in local text
>>>>>> segment "t" .
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Grr... this may require us to toss out some symbol patterns that are
>>>>> generated
>>>>> by GCC.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [lunatic at lunatic samples]$ sparc-rtems5-nm base_sp/base_sp.exe |
>>>>>> grep -i csw
>>>>>> 40010c18 t CSWTCH.1
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I see this also on the sparc. On the i386, it is rodata.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I followed the INFO messages for a mismatch in
>>>>>> _Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_error
>>>>>>
>>>>>> here's what I came up with
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --------------- capture.exe
>>>>>> [lunatic at lunatic samples]$ sparc-rtems5-objdump -d
>>>>>> capture/capture.exe | grep "_Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_error"
>>>>>> 40010c5c: 40 00 15 8c call 4001628c <_Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_
>>>>>> error>
>>>>>> 400117ac: 40 00 12 b8 call 4001628c <_Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_
>>>>>> error>
>>>>>> 40011938: 40 00 12 55 call 4001628c <_Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_
>>>>>> error>
>>>>>> 40015c94: 40 00 01 7e call 4001628c <_Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_
>>>>>> error>
>>>>>> 4001628c <_Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_error>:
>>>>>> 400162ac: 02 80 00 04 be 400162bc <_Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_
>>>>>> error+0x30>
>>>>>> 4002cb14: 7f ff a5 de call 4001628c <_Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_
>>>>>> error>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -------------- base_sp.exe
>>>>>> [lunatic at lunatic samples]$ sparc-rtems5-objdump -d
>>>>>> base_sp/base_sp.exe | grep "_Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_error"
>>>>>> 40008068: 40 00 11 49 call 4000c58c <_Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_
>>>>>> error>
>>>>>> 400089f4: 40 00 0e e6 call 4000c58c <_Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_
>>>>>> error>
>>>>>> 40008b80: 40 00 0e 83 call 4000c58c <_Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_
>>>>>> error>
>>>>>> 4000c0e0: 40 00 01 2b call 4000c58c <_Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_
>>>>>> error>
>>>>>> 4000c58c <_Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_error>:
>>>>>> 4000c5ac: 02 80 00 04 be 4000c5bc <_Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_
>>>>>> error+0x30>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That shows the references to the symbol not the size. You need to look
>>>>> at the start of
>>>>> the symbol and start of the following symbol.
>>>>>
>>>>> I looked at the "nm -N" output for base_sp.
>>>>>
>>>>> 0200ba0c T _Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_error
>>>>> 0200ba48 T _SPARC_Counter_read_address
>>>>>
>>>>> I get this for base_sp
>>>> 4000c58c T _Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_error
>>>> 4000c5e0 T syscall
>>>>
>>>> 0xe0 - 0x8c = 0x54 ==> 84
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And for capture:
>>>>>
>>>>> 02015c3c T _Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_error
>>>>> 02015c78 T rtems_shell_wait_for_explicit_input
>>>>>
>>>>> 4001628c T _Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_error
>>>> 400162c8 T rtems_shell_wait_for_explicit_input
>>>>
>>>> 0xc8 - 0x8c = 0x3C ==> 60
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK. In base_sp.exe, what is at the end of the method
>>> _Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_error before the beginning of syscall?
>>>
>>>
>> _Internal_error( INTERNAL_ERROR_WORKSPACE_ALLOCATION );
>> 4000c5bc: 7f ff eb 70 call 4000737c <_Internal_error>
>> 4000c5c0: 90 10 20 03 mov 3, %o0
>> 4000c5c4: 01 00 00 00 nop
>>
>> When you compare the code for _Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_error in
>>> both .exe files, are they the same? They should be since the code is coming
>>> from a library and it always has matched in the past. But...
>>>
>>>
>> it looks the same though.
>>
>
> Are you sure those are the two executables which it is tripping over?
>
they were the first two in the list . seems like there are other exes
having conflict with base_sp in other symbols.
have a look
=================================================
INFO: DesiredSymbols::createCoverageMap - Attempt to create unified
coverage maps for _Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_error with different sizes
(/home/lunatic/development/rtems/kernel/leon3/sparc-rtems5/c/leon3/testsuites/samples/capture/capture.exe/84
!=
/home/lunatic/development/rtems/kernel/leon3/sparc-rtems5/c/leon3/testsuites/samples/base_sp/base_sp.exe/60)
INFO: DesiredSymbols::createCoverageMap - Attempt to create unified
coverage maps for hex2ascii_data with different sizes
(/home/lunatic/development/rtems/kernel/leon3/sparc-rtems5/c/leon3/testsuites/samples/capture/capture.exe/41
!=
/home/lunatic/development/rtems/kernel/leon3/sparc-rtems5/c/leon3/testsuites/samples/base_sp/base_sp.exe/49)
INFO: DesiredSymbols::createCoverageMap - Attempt to create unified
coverage maps for _Thread_queue_Operations_default with different sizes
(/home/lunatic/development/rtems/kernel/leon3/sparc-rtems5/c/leon3/testsuites/samples/capture/capture.exe/356
!=
/home/lunatic/development/rtems/kernel/leon3/sparc-rtems5/c/leon3/testsuites/samples/base_sp/base_sp.exe/352)
INFO: DesiredSymbols::createCoverageMap - Attempt to create unified
coverage maps for CSWTCH.1 with different sizes
(/home/lunatic/development/rtems/kernel/leon3/sparc-rtems5/c/leon3/testsuites/samples/capture/capture.exe/32
!=
/home/lunatic/development/rtems/kernel/leon3/sparc-rtems5/c/leon3/testsuites/samples/base_sp/base_sp.exe/756)
INFO: DesiredSymbols::createCoverageMap - Attempt to create unified
coverage maps for _Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_error with different sizes
(/home/lunatic/development/rtems/kernel/leon3/sparc-rtems5/c/leon3/testsuites/samples/cdtest/cdtest.exe/84
!=
/home/lunatic/development/rtems/kernel/leon3/sparc-rtems5/c/leon3/testsuites/samples/base_sp/base_sp.exe/80)
INFO: DesiredSymbols::createCoverageMap - Attempt to create unified
coverage maps for CSWTCH.1 with different sizes
(/home/lunatic/development/rtems/kernel/leon3/sparc-rtems5/c/leon3/testsuites/samples/cdtest/cdtest.exe/756
!=
/home/lunatic/development/rtems/kernel/leon3/sparc-rtems5/c/leon3/testsuites/samples/base_sp/base_sp.exe/12)
INFO: DesiredSymbols::createCoverageMap - Attempt to create unified
coverage maps for _Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_error with different sizes
(/home/lunatic/development/rtems/kernel/leon3/sparc-rtems5/c/leon3/testsuites/samples/fileio/fileio.exe/84
!=
/home/lunatic/development/rtems/kernel/leon3/sparc-rtems5/c/leon3/testsuites/samples/base_sp/base_sp.exe/60)
=====================================================
> I have never seen a case where the code matched by hand and covoar messed
> up. But there is always the first. :)
>
> I can look into it in more detail with some instructions as I'm clueless
myself.
> Are you running with just those two executables?
>
> I'm running with all the samples/
> If the input Is the same and covoar doesn't believe it, then gdb is your
> friend. Or you will have to add some helpful verbose messages that Cillian
> and I couldn't.
>
> I don't yet understand it clearly. It surely needs some more messages.
Is it only me with these messages ?
>
>
>>>> base_sp: 0x48 - 0x0c = 0x3C ==> 60
>>>>> capture: 0x78 - 0x3c = 0x3c ==> 60
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on that alone, they are the same size. Now let's look at the
>>>>> objdump and see what's
>>>>> at the end that might look like padding:
>>>>>
>>>>> base_sp.exe ========================
>>>>> _Internal_error( INTERNAL_ERROR_WORKSPACE_ALLOCATION );
>>>>> 200ba3c: 7f ff ea d4 call 200658c <_Internal_error>
>>>>> 200ba40: 90 10 20 03 mov 3, %o0
>>>>> 200ba44: 01 00 00 00 nop
>>>>> ====================================
>>>>>
>>>>> The nop would be considered padding by covoar since it is at the end
>>>>> of the method.
>>>>>
>>>>> capture.exe ===========================
>>>>>
>>>>> _Internal_error( INTERNAL_ERROR_WORKSPACE_ALLOCATION );
>>>>> 2015c6c: 7f ff e6 53 call 200f5b8 <_Internal_error>
>>>>> 2015c70: 90 10 20 03 mov 3, %o0
>>>>> 2015c74: 01 00 00 00 nop
>>>>>
>>>>> ====================================
>>>>>
>>>>> Comparing the body of the two methods based on objdump output, I don't
>>>>> see any difference for sparc/erc32 at -O2.
>>>>>
>>>>> I repeated looking at the objdump output at -Os and they were the same
>>>>> instructions
>>>>> and length.
>>>>>
>>>>> You will have to investigate to see why they are different on your
>>>>> side.
>>>>>
>>>>> What am I doing different ? Is it because of the covoar patches ?
>>>> (have you applied the patches ?)
>>>>
>>>
>>> I got my results comparing the .exe's by hand with no involvement of
>>> covoar.
>>>
>>> I am getting the above result by hand. running covoar
>> shows the same size mismatch that I'm getting by hand
>>
>>
>>> What compiler flags are you using? -O2 or -Os? Gcov arguments? Any other
>>> changes to them?
>>>
>>>
>> -O2 . No Gcov arguments or any other changes.
>>
>> PS: For Gcov I'm actually waiting for the discussion on changing the gcc
>> flags
>>
> Change them by hand in the .cfg file for now.
>
> Okay, Thanks.
>
> Changege them -joelel
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Probably i386. Aren't you running pc386?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm running sparc
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not sparc/erc32 or Leon
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 21, 2018, 6:35 AM Cillian O'Donnell <
>>>>>>>>> cpodonnell8 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 May 2018, 12:18 Vijay Kumar Banerjee, <
>>>>>>>>>> vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 May 2018 at 16:39, Cillian O'Donnell <
>>>>>>>>>>> cpodonnell8 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 May 2018, 12:08 Cillian O'Donnell, <
>>>>>>>>>>>> cpodonnell8 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 May 2018, 11:49 Vijay Kumar Banerjee, <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 May 2018 at 11:56, Cillian O'Donnell <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cpodonnell8 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 May 2018, 22:33 Vijay Kumar Banerjee, <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 May 2018 at 02:29, Cillian O'Donnell <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cpodonnell8 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 May 2018, 15:35 Vijay Kumar Banerjee, <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20 May 2018 at 00:53, Vijay Kumar Banerjee <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 May 2018, 00:45 Cillian O'Donnell, <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cpodonnell8 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It works.. Sorry I was using the right covoar but the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong rtems-test. Ahh its nice to see the data back in the reports again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you manage to track down 2 exes with the mismatch in symbol size?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great! so next is the parsing of the symbol file.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I couldn't manage to track down the mismatch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have pushed these to my master branch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The latest update to cov-tester-support branch (please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a look)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parses the symbol-set ini file from the coverage script.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The parsing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is working but currently it's not generating reports, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> covoar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to be updated .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's best if covoar reads it's own config file, otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it creates a dependency on the tester. Scanning over the recent changes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> covoar there, it looks like it can already handle multiple sets, so the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ini with multiple sets in it is the way to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, Understood.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here are the things that I have done and that needs to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done in order to generate reports :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have added a symbol-sets.ini file and parsed it from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the coverage script
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is how it works :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - The ini file can be updated with all the symbols,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separated by ' , ' (comma)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the way covoar is actually handling it now. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should test a multi set ini and see if that's working.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I have seen it. will try with multiple sets.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - The coverages splits them and makes a list of all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - The respective libraries are parsed from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> libraries section.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - It returns a dict with all the symbols and thir
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resp. library addresses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - The library addresses are absolute so it can be run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from anywhere
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> top of build tree is not necessary.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This was a good idea but it's just that dependency issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we want to stay away from. Covoar has something to find the build directory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too, it just hasn't been connected up yet, so running it from the top of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the build directory is ok for the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes it can find the build directory. I was giving it a shot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do it from the script.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If covoar's standalone working is a necessity then it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surely needs to be working
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from covoar and shouldn't depend on the script.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It should be working from covoar and it will.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably the most pressing thing now is investigating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those mismatch in symbol size.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any advice on where/how to look for it ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before what I was doing was examining the objdump of 2 exes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking there on the weekend i think the info messages mentioned which ones
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were having trouble for which symbol. It says something like "couldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge coverage map for some_symbol because sizes from exe != to size of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other_exe. Look at the objdump of exe and other_exe, search for some_symbol
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and compare the dissasembly. There'll be more lines in one than the other,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nop padding probably. Then you had to find a check that was strict enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to chop the end of the symbol in question at the right place but not so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strict that it chopped other symbols in the wrong place. However the method
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of obtaining the symbols has changed, I'll have to have a look over the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> covoar changes tonight to see what would be the equivalent method of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checking this now. Unless Chris or Joel come back with the answer before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please have a look into this as I'm confused .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From the messages it seems like there's something with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the base_sp.exe .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I tried to run objdum with -d , I'm getting an error
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objdump: can't disassemble for architecture UNKNOWN!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what am I missing ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It'll be a sparc-objdump that was built with the rsb in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5/bin/. I'm not sure if we're still grabbing the objdump using rtems-tools
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> can't run sparc-objdump.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That might not be the exact name. Is there something that looks
>>>>>>>>>> like it in that directory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry *rtemstoolkit
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> now, so not 100% sure that this still the way to investigate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also there will probably be multiple ini's with different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collections of sets that the user could run so it would be good to give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them some method of choosing which ini they want, like coverage=score will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feed score.ini to covoar. You could try have a go at that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yeah I was planning something similar with the script
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to let users choose the sets, and run all by default .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess it needs to be done from covoar to avoid dependancy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can have look into this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is different in that it's just allowing the user an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> easier way of choosing the right ini. So it wouldn't be a dependency like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the other thing, if you run it manually you will still have to select the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ini you want. So this will be part of the script.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh , I will look into this then. :)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This way we can parse all the symbols from the same ini file.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what needs to be done :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I have added #FIXME s in the code , those are the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> small fixes that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be needed .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - The covoar needs to be updated. My proposal is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can feed the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parsed dict to the covoar instead of feeding the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> symbol file and letting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> covoar parse it ( As I mentioned previously).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20180522/3ad5c3b7/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the devel
mailing list