<offllist> Coverage support for tester
Cillian O'Donnell
cpodonnell8 at gmail.com
Wed May 30 17:25:03 UTC 2018
On Wed, 30 May 2018, 18:15 Vijay Kumar Banerjee, <vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
Ah just seen it, will take a look. It'll be good to get Chris' thoughts
too. We'll have something more definitive about how close it is to merging.
> >
>>> > 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/c61dc053/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the devel
mailing list