rtems-5.1 source code test coverage failed
joel at rtems.org
Fri Oct 23 01:59:57 UTC 2020
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020, 8:53 PM smallphd at aliyun.com <smallphd at aliyun.com>
> Thanks joel.
> I google the Couverture-Qemu and find many useful document about rtems
> test coverage.
> The conventional approach will compile source codes to create *.gcno
> files. But the Couverture-Qemu method needn't.
> In the final report, the Couverture-Qemu method will create an
> annotated.html file in which the instructions are listed as "NOT EXECUTED"
> or executed.
> The main different is only assembly language is used, while the
> conventional approach will list the souce code in C language.
The reports from covoar include the source code. The reports are from a
developer perspective and we haven't had any feedback from iv&v folks. If
the reports don't match what you need, there is always the source code . :)
> smallphd at aliyun.com
> *From:* Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org>
> *Date:* 2020-10-22 23:49
> *To:* smallphd at aliyun.com
> *CC:* devel <devel at rtems.org>
> *Subject:* Re: rtems-5.1 source code test coverage failed
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 4:02 AM smallphd at aliyun.com <smallphd at aliyun.com>
>> hi, all
>> I want test source code coverage in qemu. There are some questions I met.
>> 1. If compiling without -ftest-coverage, the test only produce a percent
>> coverage, no *.gcov file which is important to recognize which lines not
>> 2. If compiling with -ftest-coverage, *.gcno are created in the same
>> directory with *.o and these *.gcno file are included
>> in xilinx_zynq_a9_qemu-symbols.ini. However this ini file could only
>> include *.o. So the execution will raise error ----- File format not ELF or
>> Is there a tutorial introducing how to get rtems-5.1 source code test
> We don't do coverage that way. Some simulators can directly produce gcov
> I think tsim can do that for example.
> gcov foundationally assumes that it can run, collect data, and write it to
> a file
> at program exit. That model doesn't work on embedded targets. There are
> some write ups on the net of people forcing gcov data to be written
> and magic to get it off target. But this isn't how RTEMS has done coverage.
> We depend on simulators that write trace logs and a utility called
> covoar which
> can correlate multiple trace logs with the program executables and product
> a unified report. Remember that the same function may be in two RTEMS
> executables but they will not be at the same physical address. The
> execution information produced by the simulators will be in terms of which
> physical addresses are executed.
> The RTEMS Tester has support for running coverage and hopefully the
> documentation is good at explaining that.
> The qemu couverture project (a separate repo from regular qemu), sis,
> and tsim all produce trace/coverage info for an executable that covoar
> should be able to process.
> FWIW there is at least one known issue with covoar right now. Sometimes
> the reported size of a method differs between two executables.
> this has been due to padding after a method so the next adjacent
> method in memory is cache line aligned. covoar will reject information
> when a method has different sizes in different executables. But can
> adjust if it is nop padding to ignore at the end. No one has produced
> a reproducible test case to investigate for this latest one. Given
> two executables where function X appears to be different sizes, it
> is usually easy to see by hand what the program is missing. But you
> need that test case.
>> Thank you very much!
>> smallphd at aliyun.com
>> devel mailing list
>> devel at rtems.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the devel