[PATCH 11/25] Merge sapi/Makefile.am into cpukit/Makefile.am

[Chris Johns]

On 17/09/2018 08:46, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 12:58 AM Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org
> <mailto:chrisj at rtems.org>> wrote:
> 
>     On 14/9/18 11:18 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>     > ---
>     >  cpukit/Makefile.am                    | 79
>     ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>     >  cpukit/configure.ac <http://configure.ac>                   |  1 -
>     >  cpukit/sapi/Makefile.am               | 63 ----------------------------
>     >  cpukit/{sapi => }/vc-key.sh           |  0
>     >  cpukit/{sapi => }/version-vc-key.h.in <http://version-vc-key.h.in> |  0
>     >  cpukit/wrapup/Makefile.am             |  2 +-
>     >  6 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-)
>     >  delete mode 100644 cpukit/sapi/Makefile.am
>     >  rename cpukit/{sapi => }/vc-key.sh (100%)
>     >  rename cpukit/{sapi => }/version-vc-key.h.in <http://version-vc-key.h.in>
>     (100%)
> 
>     Could you please explain why you are performing this merge?
> 
>     I am not against such a change however I would like to understand what the plan
>     is and where this is going?
> 
>     The coverage tool and covoar work is using the internally built libraries to
>     group functionality, for example score. If the cpukit build is completely
>     fattened I think that tool may need to change to manage the grouping.
> 
> The coverage analysis has always assumed that the directories and the
> sub-libraries created imply areas of functionality that a developer would
> like to know the coverage of independently of other areas. For example,
> should the score, fatfs, and shell be lumped into one coverage report
> or would it be IMO preferable to generate them on each area?

This makes sense. Any user or organisation wanting coverage information will
only be interested in specific areas and not everything that could be run. We
need to provide what we see as the standard groupings and I suspect we will need
to allow that data to be specialised where a more accurate and controlled
profile is needed.

> We need to recognize that some code analysis needs to know the logical
> grouping of code. How do you propose this happen when the information
> implicit in the sub-libraries is lost?

We have a growing set of data with RTEMS. Some of the files under this tree in
the tester are an example:

https://git.rtems.org/rtems-tools/tree/tester/rtems

I see the grouping of source as another set of data we need to maintain. The
current use of libraries is implementation specific ...

https://git.rtems.org/rtems-tools/tree/tester/rtems/testing/coverage/symbol-sets.ini

... and we would need to find a workable solution for this patch to be merged.

I am starting to wonder if this data is held in the RTEMS repo and it gets
installed?

Chris