<offllist> Coverage support for tester
Vijay Kumar Banerjee
vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com
Wed May 30 17:14:45 UTC 2018
On Wed, 30 May 2018, 22:42 Cillian O'Donnell, <cpodonnell8 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 30 May 2018, 16:58 Gedare Bloom, <gedare at rtems.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee
>> <vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 30 May 2018 at 20:18, Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hello Vijay,
>> >>
>> >> Do you expect/need an answer to something in here?
>> >>
>> >> gedare
>> >>
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I wanted to know if there were any plans on how covoar
>> > should store the reports when running for multisets.
>> > Earlier it used to be done by the coverage script,
>> > after the recent changes covoar can process multi sets.
>> >
>> > I think, covoar should store the reports into separate directories
>> > for each set . eg. score/ , rtems/ . As the coverage can already read
>> > from separate directories.
>>
>
> Sorry I thought all questions had been answered here. I think you have the
> right idea. Each set should be a sub-directory of coverage directory.
>
> By the way I tested your changes and everything seems fine. Still have to
> do a review of coverage.py to see how close we are to merging.
>
I have squashed everything and sent a patch to devel at . This will make it
easy to go through all the changes. Please have a look.
> >
>> > Any advice on how should it be approached ?
>>
>> It would help me if you could draw/write a diagram of what the
>> filesystem tree might look like with separate directories, and what
>> will go in each subdirectory.
>>
>> I don't have enough context to give any useful advice on this question.
>>
>> -Gedare
>>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee
>> >> <vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On 30 May 2018 at 00:54, Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee
>> >> >> <vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Tue, 29 May 2018, 20:10 Joel Sherrill, <joel at rtems.org> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:08 PM, Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org>
>> >> >>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> On 29/5/18 4:26 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> >> >>>>> > On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 5:43 AM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee
>> >> >>>>> > <vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com
>> >> >>>>> > <mailto:vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > Hello,
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > The coverage reports are now showing results.
>> >> >>>>> > The current branch that holds all the changes is
>> >> >>>>> > the cov-tester-support branch in my forked repo
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> >
>> https://github.com/thelunatic/rtems-tools/tree/cov-tester-support
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > <
>> https://github.com/thelunatic/rtems-tools/tree/cov-tester-support>
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > (Please have a look into the code and test it.)
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > It is close to merging (hopefully). These are the issues
>> >> >>>>> > that would need a fix before it can be merged :
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > 1. I have added some #FIXME in the code (have a look)
>> >> >>>>> > in coverage script. I have set the value of the targe
>> to
>> >> >>>>> > be
>> >> >>>>> > sparc-rtems5, which makes it limited to sparc-rtems5
>> only.
>> >> >>>>> > We
>> >> >>>>> > can
>> >> >>>>> > include the target in the bsp ini file, That would
>> >> >>>>> > be a quick fix for this.
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > Yes. This needs to be fixed.
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > My hack to add 4 in ObjdumpProcessor.cc needs to be addressed
>> >> >>>>> > also.
>> >> >>>>> > I am thinking of adding a method to Target_*.cc to ask for the
>> >> >>>>> > size
>> >> >>>>> > of an
>> >> >>>>> > instruction.
>> >> >>>>> > Then pass it the last instruction. That way we can throw on
>> other
>> >> >>>>> > architectures for
>> >> >>>>> > now. If Chris solves this with his changes before we try
>> another
>> >> >>>>> > architecture,
>> >> >>>>> > great.
>> >> >>>>> > If not, it will be easy to fix.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> What is the overall requirement?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> To know the ending address of the function.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Technically there are three pieces of information:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> + start address
>> >> >>>> + end address
>> >> >>>> + size
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> If you know two of those, you can compute the third.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I don't care if this comes from DWARF, ELF, or parsing the
>> >> >>>> disassembly.
>> >> >>>> It just needs to be reliable.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> And.. I am not proposing my solution as permanent. Just to keep us
>> >> >>>> moving. You want to change to an internal disassembler (which
>> >> >>>> would also need to have the source interspersed) and DWARF. So
>> >> >>>> this code would go away then.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> What defines the function and so size are attempting to get
>> coverage
>> >> >>>>> of? What if
>> >> >>>>> that function calls an inline function and that function is
>> inlined?
>> >> >>>>> What if
>> >> >>>>> that inlined function calls another inlined function?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Then it is all inlined. It is done consistently now. I have never
>> >> >>>> seen a
>> >> >>>> case
>> >> >>>> where two instances of a method differed as the assembly level.
>> [1]
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> The actual body of the inlined method is evaluated at each
>> expansion
>> >> >>>> point.
>> >> >>>> That is why a few years ago, I pushed hard to reduce the
>> complexity
>> >> >>>> of
>> >> >>>> inline methods because we got test patch explosion when an inlined
>> >> >>>> method
>> >> >>>> included complex conditionals.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Similarly, I think it would be helpful to coverage and
>> verification
>> >> >>>> efforts to
>> >> >>>> follow the **shudder** MISRA rule which want you to write simple
>> >> >>>> conditional
>> >> >>>> expressions rather than compound ones. I have taken to writing
>> code
>> >> >>>> this
>> >> >>>> way as much as possible. But haven't pushed it as a coding rule.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> if (a) {
>> >> >>>> if (b) {
>> >> >>>> do x;
>> >> >>>> }
>> >> >>>> }
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Versus
>> >> >>>> if (a && b) {
>> >> >>>> do x;
>> >> >>>> }
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> The reason is that the first is easier to analyse coverage on.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> [1] We both expect LTO could change this.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> [2] ESA did specifically mention this one though. Also in general
>> >> >>>> terms,
>> >> >>>> an RTEMS Project response to MISRA rules. Which ones we follow,
>> >> >>>> reject, etc.. But I refuse to adopt hard rules which can't be
>> >> >>>> enforced
>> >> >>>> by free open source tools.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> The DWARF data provides details about the PC low and PC high of
>> what
>> >> >>>>> is
>> >> >>>>> called
>> >> >>>>> concrete functions and then it provides the details about
>> inlines.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> We don't (currently) report on the inlines as independent methods.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > 2. coverage used to feed ini file for each symbol to covoar
>> >> >>>>> > in a loop and store the result in a separate directory
>> >> >>>>> > for each symbol . Which is needed no more needed as
>> >> >>>>> > covoar can now process multi sets from a
>> >> >>>>> > single ini file. I think the results from covoar
>> should
>> >> >>>>> > be
>> >> >>>>> > store in a separate directory for each symbol
>> >> >>>>> > example :- score/
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > A bit of history will help here. Originally covoar was run
>> against
>> >> >>>>> > a
>> >> >>>>> > single set of
>> >> >>>>> > code by the scripting framework. We would do coverage on either
>> >> >>>>> > "core
>> >> >>>>> > parts"
>> >> >>>>> > or "developmental" (e.g. nearly all non-networked code). The
>> >> >>>>> > optimization was
>> >> >>>>> > either at -O2 or -Os. So there were four coverage variants.
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > Turned out that when we added something to "all", the
>> percentage
>> >> >>>>> > would drop
>> >> >>>>> > and reflect badly on the rest of the code. I remember adding
>> the
>> >> >>>>> > dosfs and
>> >> >>>>> > the coverage dropped almost 20 percent.
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > This led to the idea that we should report on a per
>> >> >>>>> > directory/subsystem basis.
>> >> >>>>> > The score, rtems, posix, sapi, and libcsupport should have high
>> >> >>>>> > coverage now
>> >> >>>>> > and the reports should reflect that independent of whether the
>> >> >>>>> > dosfs
>> >> >>>>> > needs a
>> >> >>>>> > lot more tests.
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > Before each directory/subsystem required a completely separate
>> run
>> >> >>>>> > of
>> >> >>>>> > covoar.
>> >> >>>>> > If we are headed to a solution where one analysis run of covoar
>> >> >>>>> > generates different
>> >> >>>>> > reports, that should speed up the processing time a lot!
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > The other issue is what should the top directory look
>> like/contain
>> >> >>>>> > when a single
>> >> >>>>> > run produces multiple subsystem reports. Seems like we would
>> need
>> >> >>>>> > at
>> >> >>>>> > least a
>> >> >>>>> > top level html and text file.
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > 3. currently we are using the leon3-qemu-cov as the bsp.
>> >> >>>>> > Are we going to have two ini file for each bsp ? ( one
>> >> >>>>> > without coverage
>> >> >>>>> > and one with coverage support)
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > Earlier the approach was to include a section 'coverage'
>> >> >>>>> > to the bsp ini to put the values we needed for coverage.
>> >> >>>>> > I think that approach would be more "convenient" for the
>> user.
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > This was something Chris suggested. I think it was to avoid
>> adding
>> >> >>>>> > to
>> >> >>>>> > the bsp ini file until the code was closer to merging.
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > Chris.. what do you think? Long term, a section would be nice.
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Sorry I cannot remember without looking it up and I am currently
>> >> >>>>> buried
>> >> >>>>> in
>> >> >>>>> family issues.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> OK. Having the Python scripting loop over the sets or covoar
>> looping
>> >> >>>> over them
>> >> >>>> is an open issue. Historically, looping over desired symbol sets
>> was
>> >> >>>> outside
>> >> >>>> covoar. So looping inside covoar may take some work.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> covoar can already loop over the
>> >> >>> sets it seems, which is implemented
>> >> >>> in DesiredSymbols. But it stores all the
>> >> >>> reports generated from into the same directory.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If there is an index that makes its possible to navigate through the
>> >> >> different "subsystems", then that's the key thing. You don't want
>> >> >> to think score is poorly covered due to dosfs.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> P.S:Sorry for the previous mail with no message
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> --joel
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Chris
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > devel mailing list
>> >> > devel at rtems.org
>> >> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180530/f2d700eb/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the devel
mailing list