[PATCH] rtems-tools/covoar: -f switch was not used to select coverage format
jiri at gaisler.se
Thu Jan 24 17:01:31 UTC 2019
On 1/24/19 4:19 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 8:46 AM Jiri Gaisler <jiri at gaisler.se
> <mailto:jiri at gaisler.se>> wrote:
> On 1/24/19 2:19 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 6:38 AM Jiri Gaisler <jiri at gaisler.se
>> <mailto:jiri at gaisler.se> wrote:
>> Small patch to fix covoar to work with TSIM coverage files.
>> It should be noted that covoar erroneously marks some code as
>> uncovered while it is marked as covered in the coverage file.
>> This seems to be due to incorrect parsing of the symbol table
>> in the exec file. I will file a ticket for this on trac ..
>> Is this the entry and exit code of a method or something else?
>> The switch to dwarf info seems to have caused that and not
>> marking assembly from inlined methods.
> I notice two problems: the first instruction in a range is
> sometimes marked as uncovered:
> 4000807c <_Freechain_Get>:
> Freechain_Control *freechain,
> Freechain_Allocator allocator,
> size_t number_nodes_to_extend,
> size_t node_size
> 4000807c: 9d e3 bf a0 save %sp, -96, %sp
> <== NOT EXECUTED
> 40008080: ba 10 00 18 mov %i0, %i5
> return _Chain_Immutable_head( the_chain )->next;
> 40008084: f0 06 00 00 ld [ %i0 ], %i0
> even though it is marked as executed in the coverage file. The
> second problems is that the size of ranges is sometimes off by one
> byte, e.g. 21 bytes instead of 20. This can only be seen when
> debugging covoar in gdb.
> I recall that the CoverageReaderTSIM code did an offset of +1 to +4
> from the address. Perhaps it just needs to be 0-3. :)
CoverageReaderTSIM calls aCoverageMap->setWasExecuted() with correct
addresses from the coverage file, I checked that through debug prints.
Checking the final annotated sources, I can see that the first
instruction in each range is always marked as uncovered, regardless of
coverage data. The remaining instructions seem to be annotated
correctly. For some reason, theCoverageMap->wasExecuted() in
ReportsBase.cc does not return the correct data for the first address in
each range. My C++ skills are rather poor, so I have a hard time
debugging all the object nonsense to understand why the coverage map is
Maybe my mind will clear a bit after some food ... :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the devel