[PATCH] covoar.cc: Correct build path checks for multiple executables.

[Cillian O'Donnell]

On Sun, 13 May 2018, 22:15 Vijay Kumar Banerjee, <vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 14 May 2018 at 02:15, Cillian O'Donnell <cpodonnell8 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ---
>>  tester/covoar/covoar.cc | 10 +++-------
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tester/covoar/covoar.cc b/tester/covoar/covoar.cc
>> index 5c87402..c6b0589 100644
>> --- a/tester/covoar/covoar.cc
>> +++ b/tester/covoar/covoar.cc
>> @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ static void createBuildPath(Executables&
>> executablesToAnalyze,
>>          if (buildPrefix.empty()) {
>>            buildPrefix = *pri;
>>          } else {
>> -          if (buildBSP != *pri) {
>> +          if (buildPrefix != *pri) {
>>              fail = "executable build prefix does not match: " +
>> buildPrefix;
>>              break;
>>            }
>> @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ static void createBuildPath(Executables&
>> executablesToAnalyze,
>>          if (buildPath.empty()) {
>>            buildPath = thisBuildPath;
>>          } else {
>> -          if (buildBSP != *pri) {
>> +          if (buildPath != thisBuildPath) {
>>              fail = "executable build path does not match: " + buildPath;
>>            }
>>          }
>> @@ -316,11 +316,7 @@ int main(
>>          std::cerr << "warning: Unable to read executable: " << argv[i]
>> << std::endl;
>>        } else {
>>          coverageFileName = argv[i];
>> -        coverageFileName.replace(
>> -          coverageFileName.length() - executableExtension.size(),
>> -          executableExtension.size(),
>> -          coverageExtension
>> -        );
>> +        coverageFileName.append( "." + coverageExtension );
>>
>>          if (!FileIsReadable( coverageFileName.c_str() )) {
>>            std::cerr << "warning: Unable to read coverage file: " <<
>> coverageFileName
>> --
>> 2.7.4
>>
>> This worked !
>

Cool, looks like we're onto fixing the reports then. If you take a look at
report.html only the headings are there. I think what might be wrong there
is it's just searching in the wrong place for the results. The fix for that
will lie in coverage.py. Warning about coverage.py, there could be whole
sections in there that might just be deleted, it's still being reorganized.

Or seeing as covoar is in good shape now and I think the txt report is ok
(you should check and make sure of that). You could move onto gcov, lcov
stuff. Figure out the state of the gcov support in covoar, generate gcov
reports, compare the results.

> _______________________________________________
>> devel mailing list
>> devel at rtems.org
>> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20180514/b31b3622/attachment-0002.html>