Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Add support for coverage (compiling for gcov)

[Anders Björklund]

Joel Rosdahl wrote:

 (Sorry about the very delayed answer.)

No problem!

 The patch looks good! I plan to only apply fixes to serious bugs on 
 3.1-maint, so I'll focus on the 3.2-maint version.

That it is OK, we can backport to 3.1 downstream if needed. Will focus on 
master (and 3.2).

 Two questions:

 1. I get this test suite failure with GCC = 4.7:

 % CC=gcc-4.7 ./test.sh direct
...

 No failure with GCC = 4.6.

 I guess that the coverage (empty) test should check that the two runs 
 either both produce no test.gcno files or both produce identical test.gcno 
 files?

Right, I will need to look into this issue with a newer compiler and get back 
to you.

There's also some issues with absolute/relative paths and cache hits from when 
using a base directory...

 2. You wrote Please include these in ccache, under GNU General Public 
 License v3. Just to clarify: Do you agree to use the same license as the 
 rest of ccache does, which is GPLv3 or any later version?

Yes, I meant to use the same license as the rest of the ccache software. So: 
GPLv3+ (or any later version) it is.

/Anders

___
ccache mailing list
ccache@lists.samba.org
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache

Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Add support for coverage (compiling for gcov)

[Joel Rosdahl]

Hi Anders,

(Sorry about the very delayed answer.)

The patch looks good! I plan to only apply fixes to serious bugs on
3.1-maint, so I'll focus on the 3.2-maint version.

Two questions:

1. I get this test suite failure with GCC = 4.7:

% CC=gcc-4.7 ./test.sh direct
compiler: /usr/bin/gcc-4.7
version: gcc-4.7 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.7.4-2ubuntu1) 4.7.4 Copyright © 2012 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.
test dir: testdir.16070
starting testsuite direct
SUITE: direct, TEST: coverage (empty) - gcov 1
cache directory
/home/joel/code/ccache/ccache/testdir.16070/.ccache
primary config
 /home/joel/code/ccache/ccache/testdir.16070/ccache.conf
secondary config  (readonly)
cache hit (direct) 0
cache hit (preprocessed)   0
cache miss 1
files in cache15
cache size  61.4 kB
max cache size   5.0 GB
TEST FAILED
Test data and log file have been left in testdir.16070
% test -r testdir.16070/test.gcno  echo exists
exists

No failure with GCC = 4.6.

I guess that the coverage (empty) test should check that the two runs
either both produce no test.gcno files or both produce identical test.gcno
files?

2. You wrote Please include these in ccache, under GNU General Public
License v3. Just to clarify: Do you agree to use the same license as the
rest of ccache does, which is GPLv3 or any later version?

-- Joel

On 6 January 2015 at 23:21, Anders Björklund and...@itension.se wrote:

 Hi!

 We've added support for gcc --coverage (including -fprofile-arcs and
 -ftest-coverage) to ccache.

 You can find the patches, for the maint versions, over on
 https://github.com/itension/ccache:


 https://github.com/itension/ccache/compare/3.1-maint...coverage-3.1.10.patch

 https://github.com/itension/ccache/compare/3.2-maint...coverage-3.2.1.patch


 It works by storing the .gcno file in the cache (next to the .o file),
 when using --coverage.

 It also needs to hash the absolute path to the .gcda file, that is created
 later at runtime.


 Please include these in ccache, under GNU General Public License v3. I am
 their author.

 /Anders

 ___
 ccache mailing list
 ccache@lists.samba.org
 https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache

___
ccache mailing list
ccache@lists.samba.org
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache