Recent rtems-tools patches status

[Joel Sherrill]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:52 AM Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 7:56 AM Alex White <alex.white at oarcorp.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> > Here is the status of the rtems-tools patches I have sent out over the
> past few weeks (an X means the latest patch revision has been reviewed):
> >
> >
> >
> > [ ] tester: Limit branch coverage percentage precision
> >
> > [ ] coverage: Fix option processing on FreeBSD
> >
> > [ ] coverage/symbol-sets.ini : Add libtrace
> >
> > [ ] covoar/Reports: Fix empty branch report
> >
> > [ ] covoar: Fix overflow of high PC address
> >
> > [ ] covoar: Catch exceptional case
> >
> > [ ] covoar: Add option to create named objdumps
> >
> > [X] covoar: Fix null pointer dereference
> >
> > [X] coverage: Give coverage bars red background
> >
> > [X] coverage/reports: Share common JS and CSS in reports
> >
> > [X] coverage/reports: Improve formatting and clarity
> >
> > [X] covoar/reports: Add new statistics to summary
> >
> > [ ] covoar: Handle periods in symbols from objdump
> >
> > [ ] covoar: Account for build path change
> >
> > [ ] covoar: Fix DWARF reading
> >
> > [ ] covoar/TargetBase: Fix QEMU branch info
> >
> > [ ] covoar/CoverageReaderQEMU: Fix infinite loop
> >
> > [ ] covoar/Target_arm: Add THUMB branch instructions
> >
> > [ ] covoar/Target_i386: Add NOP patterns
> >
> > [ ] covoar: Fix NOP execution marking
> >
> > [X] tester: Add coverage variants for a few BSPs
> >
> > [X] tester: Remove target from BSP coverage configs
> >
> > [X] tester: Update to support new build system
> >
> > [ ] covoar: Add aarch64 target
> >
> > [X] covoar/TargetBase: Rename branchInstructions to
> conditionalBranchInstructions
> >
> > [X] rld-process: Add named tempfile constructor
> >
> > [X] rld-dwarf: Fix file::get_source
> >
> > [X] rld-dwarf: Add function::has_entry_pc
> >
> >
> >
> > I sent these patches as a firehose, so I am not surprised that some
> didn’t get a response. :)
> >
> >
> >
> > My plan is to resend the patches that have not been reviewed and meter
> them out so I don’t overwhelm the list. Hopefully that will allow us to
> better work through this list. Is that ok?
> >
>
> Yes. You and Joel may also like to track these with a spreadsheet. I'd
> be willing to open one when asked :)
>

Alex.. that's a not so subtle hint to create a Google sheet to track
these, make it world readable, and perhaps give Gedare and I
permission to edit it. :)

--joel

>
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20210324/bcb4ba1a/attachment.html>