If you run nm on some of the executables, do you see the Is symbol? We need to.know its type.
On Fri, May 18, 2018, 5:24 PM Vijay Kumar Banerjee <vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19 May 2018 at 03:29, Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee < >> vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, 19 May 2018, 03:06 Joel Sherrill, <j...@rtems.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 4:01 PM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee < >>>> vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 19 May 2018 at 02:29, Vijay Kumar Banerjee < >>>>> vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 19 May 2018 at 01:30, Cillian O'Donnell <cpodonne...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 18 May 2018, 14:55 Vijay Kumar Banerjee, < >>>>>>> vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 18 May 2018 at 19:09, Cillian O'Donnell <cpodonne...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 May 2018, 12:36 Vijay Kumar Banerjee, < >>>>>>>>> vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 18 May 2018 at 12:30, Cillian O'Donnell <cpodonne...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Cool, you should run it for the full testsuite and take a look >>>>>>>>>>> at that report (takes a while.. around 575 tests) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When I try to run the full testsuites it gives the following >>>>>>>>>> error . What could be causing this ? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you run the full testsuite without the coverage options, does >>>>>>>>> it still happen? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No it seems to run fine without coverage. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I vaguely remember seeing this before last year, I suspect that when >>>>>>> things are cleared up in coverage.py it will dissappear. So don't worry >>>>>>> about it for now, carry on with what you're doing. What branch are you >>>>>>> working on at the moment? >>>>>>> >>>>>> The path to build directory from the executable path is working now ! >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm working in this branch currently, I'll send a patch to all of it >>>>>> together when it starts working. >>>>>> >>>>> I meant to say once the parsing of ini file starts working. the path >>>>> to build directory is already working. >>>>> >>>>>> Please have a look and also suggest improvements where applicable . >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/thelunatic/rtems-tools/tree/cov-tester-support. >>>>>> >>>>>> after this update, running it on full testsuits doesn't give that >>>>>> error anymore but it has some other issue. The report doesn't shows data >>>>>> only for samples even after running it for full testsuites >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> Do you have coverage output on all the tests? >>>> >>> I have coverage output on tests under samples/ only . >>> running it for the whole testsuits gives the same coverage output as >>> with samples/ >>> >>>> >>>> Is the verbose output indicating that all the tests are being looped >>>> over? >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> and I'm getting this error : >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> ERROR==> Different lengths for the symbol CSWTCH.1 (16 and 544) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Cillian must want to purge all memory of this type of message. :) >>>> >>>> This message indicates that a symbol of interest (e.g. a function) has >>>> one length >>>> in one executable file and a completely different one in a second. >>>> Cillian worked >>>> on one of these last summer which was because the method was padded with >>>> a different number of nops in each executable. That was supposed to be >>>> handled >>>> by covoar but he found a nasty bug. >>>> >>>> This particular one looks like it is for a GCC generated symbol which >>>> should >>>> have been ignored in the symbols of interest. My bet is that the way we >>>> formerly >>>> got the DesiredSymbols only got real methods. The new way must also be >>>> picking up some "local" symbols that gcc is generating. >>>> >>>> If we know either of those executables, we should be able to look at >>>> the >>>> symbol table with nm and figure out what Chris is pulling in that he >>>> shouldn't. >>>> >>>> Is this a fatal error or just a "give up" on this symbol in this >>>> executable? >>>> >>> it doesn't break in the middle. Coverage does run but the report doesn't >>> look proper >>> >> >> This is an auto-generated symbol by gcc which will be in the middle of a >> method. >> DesiredSymbols should be ignoring symbols like this. I don't think seeing >> them >> will cause a horrible problem but it is quite likely that the method(s) >> these are >> seen in will have quite incorrect results. >> >> If running on samples looks OK, try running coverage from just tmtests and >> see if that is better. You need to find a set small enough to trip the >> problem >> but easy to analyse. >> > Coverage from tmtests looks OK . > psxtmtests , psxtests, libtests gives the same error and doesn't show > proper coverage report. > > Also, I can see these INFO lines even with the ones that are showing > proper coverage output > > -------------- > INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for > CSWTCH.1 because the sizes are different > INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for > _Thread_queue_Operations_default because the sizes are different > INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for > CSWTCH.1 because the sizes are different > INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for > _Thread_queue_Operations_default because the sizes are different > INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for > hex2ascii_data because the sizes are different > INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for > CSWTCH.1 because the sizes are different > INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for > _Thread_queue_Operations_default because the sizes are different > INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for > _Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_error because the sizes are different > INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for > hex2ascii_data because the sizes are different > INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for > CSWTCH.1 because the sizes are different > INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for > _Thread_queue_Operations_default because the sizes are different > INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for > _Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_error because the sizes are different > INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for > CSWTCH.1 because the sizes are different > INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for > _Thread_queue_Operations_default because the sizes are different > INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for > _Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_error because the sizes are different > INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for > CSWTCH.1 because the sizes are different > INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for > _Thread_queue_Operations_default because the sizes are different > INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for > _Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_error because the sizes are different > INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for > hex2ascii_data because the sizes are different > INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for > CSWTCH.1 because the sizes are different > INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for > _Thread_queue_Operations_default because the sizes are different > INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for > _Workspace_Allocate_or_fatal_error because the sizes are different > INFO: DesiredSymbols::mergeCoverageMap - Unable to merge coverage map for > hex2ascii_data because the sizes are different > Coverage run for score finished successfully. > ----------------------------------------------- > > >> --joel >> >> >>> >>>> --joel >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> devel mailing list >>>>> devel@rtems.org >>>>> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel