Coverage Analysis on rtems 4.10 of switch case structures
Juanma Gomez
jmgomez at iaa.es
Mon May 4 15:44:32 UTC 2015
Hello Joel,
I have generated the ASM code for the example described in the last
mail. it seems to be compiled as a Switch...case
ld [%fp+68], %g1
cmp %g1, 1
be .LL4
nop
cmp %g1, 1
bg .LL7
nop
cmp %g1, 0
be .LL3
nop
b .LL2
nop
.LL7:
cmp %g1, 2
be .LL5
nop
cmp %g1, 3
be .LL6
nop
b .LL2
nop
.LL3: ...ASM ...... There are some ASM Code Lines, but if ends
jumping to LL8
b .LL8
.LL4:...ASM ...... There are some ASM Code Lines, but if ends jumping to LL8
b .LL8
.LL5: ...ASM ...... There are some ASM Code Lines, but if ends jumping
to LL8
b .LL8
.LL6: ...ASM....... There are some ASM Code Lines, but if ends
jumping to LL8
b .LL8
.LL2: .............
...ASM ......
b .LL8
.LL8:
restore
jmp %o7+8
If I check this code in the covoar output (annotated report) It looks
that it is covered correctly:
40001510: 02 80 00 1e be 40001588 <executeCommand+0x88>
40001514: 01 00 00 00 nop
40001518: 80 a0 60 01 cmp %g1, 1
4000151c: 14 80 00 07 bg*40001538* <executeCommand+0x38> <== ALWAYS TAKEN
40001520: 01 00 00 00 nop
40001524: 80 a0 60 00 cmp %g1, 0 <== NOT EXECUTED (This is correct all parameter are > 1)
40001528: 02 80 00 0c be 40001558 <executeCommand+0x58> <== NOT EXECUTED
4000152c: 01 00 00 00 nop <== NOT EXECUTED
40001530: 10 80 00 3a b 40001618 <executeCommand+0x118> <== NOT EXECUTED
40001534: 01 00 00 00 nop <== NOT EXECUTED
*40001538*: 80 a0 60 02 *cmp %g1, 2*
4000153c: 02 80 00 1f be 400015b8 <executeCommand+0xb8>
40001540: 01 00 00 00 nop
40001544: 80 a0 60 03 *cmp %g1, 3*
40001548: 02 80 00 28 be 400015e8 <executeCommand+0xe8>
4000154c: 01 00 00 00 nop
40001550: 10 80 00 32 b 40001618 <executeCommand+0x118>
40001554: 01 00 00 00 nop
But finally the output of the gcov tool is erroneous. How to verify the
correctness of gcda file?
Actually I am reading the gcov-io.h but any suggestions to speed up my
verification will be welcome.
Many thanks, Juanma.
On 04/30/2015 02:54 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> On April 30, 2015 7:41:29 AM CDT, Juanma Gomez <jmgomez at iaa.es> wrote:
>> Hola Aitor,
>>
>> Sorry I sent the email from the incorrect email address.
>>
>> We are actually using the sparc-rtems-gcov tool, but same result for
>> sparc-elf-gcov.
>>
>> $ which sparc-elf-gcov
>> /opt/bcc-src-1.0.42/bin/sparc-elf-gcov
>> $ which sparc-rtems-gcov
>> /opt/rtems-4.10/bin/sparc-rtems-gcov
>>
>> I have prepared an example in order to show you the results:
> First this is one of the reasons why the community produced coverage results start with the actual instructions executed and map those back to the source using covoar and trusting the reports it directly generates.
>
> Also.. If you are using covoar to generate gcov data, that generator has not been analyzed thoroughly. It was written as the bonus part of a GSOC project. We could see places the output didn't match our expectations but never investigated. If there are issues or integration improvements, please submit them.
>
> Have you looked at the code generated? Is it generating four separate sets of code corresponding to each case? I have seen cases where a switch turns into a range check and table lookup.
>
> I have also seen native gcc cases where I can step through code even at the assembly level so I know it is executed but gcov doesn't report it executed. This eliminates a lot of the SPARC, target, cross, etc. issues and places the blame strictly on the gcov and GCC side.
>
>> This will be our test suit, both functions are executeCommand and
>> executeCommand2 are in a static library.
>> i = 1;
>> while(i < 10){
>>
>> wrValue = executeCommand(i);
>> wrValue = executeCommand2(i);
>>
>> i ++;
>> }
>>
>>
>> executeCommand always use case 0 and default, on the other side
>> executeCommand2 is complete covered.
>> 0 2 : int executeCommand(int cmd){ 11 : unsigned char a; 12 2 :
>> switch(cmd){ 13 : 14 : case 0: 15 1 : a = 10; 16 1 : break; 17 : case
>> 1: 18 0 : a = 16; 19 0 : break; 20 : case 2: 21 0 : a = 21; 22 0 :
>> break; 23 : case 3: 24 0 : a = 31; 25 0 : break; 26 : default: 27 1 : a
>> = -1; 28 : break; 29 : 30 : } 31 : 32 2 : return a; 33 : 34 : } 35 : 36
>> 1 : int executeCommand2(int cmd){ 37 : unsigned char a; 38 : 39 1 : a =
>> -1; 40 : 41 1 : if(cmd == 0) 42 0 : a = 10; 43 : 44 1 : if (cmd==1 ) 45
>> 1 : a = 16; 46 : 47 1 : if (cmd == 2) 48 1 : a = 21; 49 : 50 1 : if
>> (cmd == 3) 51 1 : a = 31; 52 : 53 1 : return a; 54 : 55 : } I use
>> covoar to convert the coverage data generated from TSIM-LEON3 to lcov
>> data.
>>
>> simpleSW.syms
>>
>> _GLOBAL__I_65535_0_executeCommand
>> /media/data/proyecto/Nomad/leon3-sw/coverage-test0/simpleLib/simpleSW.o
>> executeCommand
>> /media/data/proyecto/Nomad/leon3-sw/coverage-test0/simpleLib/simpleSW.o
>> executeCommand2
>> /media/data/proyecto/Nomad/leon3-sw/coverage-test0/simpleLib/simpleSW.o
>>
>> simpleSW.gcnos
>>
>> /media/data/proyecto/Nomad/leon3-sw/coverage-test0/simpleLib/simpleSW.gcno
>>
>> This is part of the output of gcov tool. It looks like it is actually
>> receiving the data from TSIM or Covoar with that error.
>>
>> Processing file:
>> /media/data/proyecto/Nomad/leon3-sw/coverage-test0/simpleLib/simpleSW.gcno
>> Computing uncovered ranges and branches
>> Branch always taken found in executeCommand (0x4000151c - 0x4000151f)
>> Branch always taken found in executeCommand2 (0x40001690 - 0x40001693)
>>
>> Could you provide me some information of how to verify the correctness
>> of the coversion of the covoar tool and the tsim output. Maybe I could
>> check the file a locate if the problem comes from tsim, covoar or
>> sparc-rtems-gcov.
>>
>> Thanks, Juanma.
>>
>>
>> On 04/30/2015 10:22 AM, Aitor Viana Sanchez wrote:
>>
>> Hola Juanma,
>>
>> are you using sparc-gcov? I don’t remember whether I ever had a problem
>> with switch-case while developing/testing the tool. If you’re using it
>> and its a bug send me some files so I can reproduce the problem and fix
>> the bug.
>> If you’re using another gcov wrapper, have a look at sparc-gcov and see
>> whether it fixes the problem.
>>
>> regards
>>
>> //avs
>>
>> On 29/04/15 10:46, Juanma Mail List wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am doing a coverage analysis for a software code which is based on
>> RTEMS 4.10 and runs on a sparc-leon3 platform from Gaisler. I have
>> problem with the coverage of switch-case structures.
>>
>> The software mostly processes the commands that are send to it, and do
>> the actions associated to the them. To do the coverage, I have added
>> some wrappers and compiled the software as a static library.
>>
>> And finally a set of test application do the call to the library and
>> check the coverage.
>>
>> My framework uses:
>>
>> - TSIM/LEON3 SPARC simulator, version 2.0.19 (professional version).
>> - covoar tool and leon3 simulation script from rtems-testing tools.
>> - sparc-rtems-gcov, lcov and genhtml.
>>
>> I am not able to cover the switch-case structures. The coverage shows
>> that the execution always hit the first case of the switch-case.
>>
>> Does anyone seen this behavior before?
>>
>> Many thanks, Juanma.
>>
>> $ sparc-rtems-gcc -v
>> Reading specs from /opt/rtems-4.10/lib/gcc/sparc-rtems/4.4.6/specs
>> Target: sparc-rtems
>> Configured with: ../../gcc/configure --target=sparc-rtems --with-gnu-as
>> --with-gnu-ld --with-newlib --verbose --enable-threads
>> --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-nls --prefix=/opt/rtems-4.10
>> --enable-version-specific-runtime-libs --with-system-zlib
>> --disable-libstdcxx-pch --disable-win32-registry
>> --without-included-gettext
>> Thread model: rtems
>> gcc version 4.4.6 (GCC)
>>
>>
>> $ sparc-rtems-gcov -v
>> gcov (GCC) 4.4.6
>> Copyright (C) 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>> This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.
>> There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or
>> FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
>>
>> The tests are compiled wth the flags
>>
>> CCFLAGS = -fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage
>> LDFLAGS = -lgcov -coverage
>>
>>
>> My coverage script:
>>
>> ./leon3 -c -l 120 simpletest.exe
>> echo "Cleaning counters and create intial..."
>> lcov --zerocounters --directory "$SOURCE_DIR" > log/gcov.log 2>&1
>> lcov --capture --initial --directory "$SOURCE_DIR" --output-file
>> "$OUTPUT_DIR/coverage.info" --gcov-tool "$GCOV" >> log/gcov.log 2>&1
>>
>> covoar -v -C config $TESTSUITE >> log/gcov.log 2>&1
>> lcov --no-checksum -d $SOURCE_DIR --capture --output-file
>> "$OUTPUT_DIR/coverage.info" --gcov-tool $GCOV --config-file
>> ../rtemsNOMAD/sfs.lcovrc >> log/gcov.log 2>&1
>>
>> echo "Generating report $OUTPUT_DIR/$REPORTDIR"
>> genhtml --highlight --legend --output-directory
>> "$OUTPUT_DIR"/"$REPORTDIR" coverage.info --config-file
>> ../rtemsNOMAD/sfs.lcovrc >> log/gcov.log 2>&1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ users mailing list
>> users at rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>>
>>
>> This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the
>> addressee or addressees only. The unauthorised disclosure, use,
>> dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its content is
>> not permitted. If you received this message in error, please notify the
>> sender and delete it from your system. Emails can be altered and their
>> integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender. Please consider the
>> environment before printing this email.
>>
>> -- Juan Manuel Gómez López Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía (IAA)
>> Unidad de Desarrollo Instrumental y Tecnológico (UDIT) Glorieta de la
>> Astronomía s/n 18008 Granada Teléfono centralita: +34 958 121 311
>> Teléfono directo: +34 958 230 574 FAX: +34 958 814 530
> --joel
--
Juan Manuel Gómez López
Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía (IAA)
Unidad de Desarrollo Instrumental y Tecnológico (UDIT)
Glorieta de la Astronomía s/n 18008 Granada
Teléfono centralita: +34 958 121 311
Teléfono directo: +34 958 230 574
FAX: +34 958 814 530
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20150504/2f2c40a6/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the users
mailing list