Proposed Reorganization of Coverage Reporting

Chris Johns chrisj at
Sun Nov 18 22:20:21 UTC 2012

Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Hi
> RIght now, we only have two "buckets" of code when we
> report coverage:
> + core - sapi, rtems, score, and posix directories
> + developmental - core + ~15 cpukit directories
> I am proposing to add more buckets and remain
> developmental to "All" or something someone suggests.
> The idea came up when trying to focus on the status
> of the RFS coverage. When it had low coverage, it pulled
> down the entire developmental number but as we worked
> on improving the coverage, it was clear we wanted a
> very focused view.
> Any thoughts?

I am not sure what you mean by a "bucket". Is this something managed at 
the processing of the simulator output or when the report is generated ?

If it is when the simulator output is processed why mix 2 different 
views of the structure in RTEMS ? That is, why not "bucket" based on 
what the code is in RTEMS. This would mean RFS would be in the RFS 
bucket. The report can be then be generated from a specific set of 
"buckets" that interest you.


More information about the users mailing list