[PATCH v3] covoar: Handle periods in symbols from objdump

[Alex White]

Assuming I'm sending a v4 of this patch out, should I add the explanation of the compiler-generated suffixes to the commit message or perhaps as a comment in the code?

Alex

> -----Original Message-----
> From: devel <devel-bounces at rtems.org> On Behalf Of Alex White
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 3:32 PM
> To: Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org>; joel at rtems.org
> Cc: rtems-devel at rtems.org <devel at rtems.org>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] covoar: Handle periods in symbols from objdump
> 
> > I have lost of the context of why covoar would like to strip the
> > suffixes and use only the base symbol name. Could you please explain
> > why this is being done?
> 
> Sure. The symbol names in the DWARF info never contain these suffixes.
> 
> Covoar strips the suffixes while reading the objdump output so that the
> symbol names match those found in the DWARF info. This ensures that the
> proper coverage map is found when it looks up the symbol.
> 
> Your question prompted me to look back at my code and realize that my
> modification of ExecutableInfo::findCoverageMap() was unnecessary
> because I already modified ObjdumpProcessor::load() to always strip the
> symbol. The additional suffix handling code that I added to
> findCoverageMap() will never be run. If only I had done coverage analysis on
> the covoar tool itself...
> 
> Looks like I'll be sending a v4 of this patch. :)
> 
> Alex
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel at rtems.org
> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel