Hi,
I'd like to announce a new code coverage bot:
http://lab.llvm.org:8080/coverage/coverage-reports/clang/index.html
The purpose of the bot is to make high-quality coverage reports available to
llvm developers, and to provide additional testing for clang's code coverage
implementation.
The coverage data clang generates allows the reporting tool to render execution
counts for code regions nested within lines or macros. The tool is also capable
of displaying coverage information for each instantiation of a function.
The bot runs "check-{llvm,clang}" with an instrumented version of the
latest
top-of-tree compiler. It generates new reports roughly every four hours. These
reports can be used to find dead code, find fishy code, and to gauge the
effectiveness of our smoke tests.
If you have any feedback about the bot or the coverage reports, please let me
know!
vedant
p.s: There is already a coverage bot which runs "check-all" and uses
gcov. If
you'd prefer those reports, you can find them here --
http://llvm.org/reports/coverage/
Would it be possible to add lld to the mix? :-) Thanks, Rafael On 22 September 2016 at 13:05, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Hi, > > I'd like to announce a new code coverage bot: > > http://lab.llvm.org:8080/coverage/coverage-reports/clang/index.html > > The purpose of the bot is to make high-quality coverage reports available to > llvm developers, and to provide additional testing for clang's code coverage > implementation. > > The coverage data clang generates allows the reporting tool to render execution > counts for code regions nested within lines or macros. The tool is also capable > of displaying coverage information for each instantiation of a function. > > The bot runs "check-{llvm,clang}" with an instrumented version of the latest > top-of-tree compiler. It generates new reports roughly every four hours. These > reports can be used to find dead code, find fishy code, and to gauge the > effectiveness of our smoke tests. > > If you have any feedback about the bot or the coverage reports, please let me > know! > > vedant > > p.s: There is already a coverage bot which runs "check-all" and uses gcov. If > you'd prefer those reports, you can find them here -- > > http://llvm.org/reports/coverage/ > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Nice! Would be good to get this linked up to llvm.org <http://llvm.org/> so I can find it easily next time I am interested in coverage info. - Matthias> On Sep 22, 2016, at 10:05 AM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > I'd like to announce a new code coverage bot: > > http://lab.llvm.org:8080/coverage/coverage-reports/clang/index.html > > The purpose of the bot is to make high-quality coverage reports available to > llvm developers, and to provide additional testing for clang's code coverage > implementation. > > The coverage data clang generates allows the reporting tool to render execution > counts for code regions nested within lines or macros. The tool is also capable > of displaying coverage information for each instantiation of a function. > > The bot runs "check-{llvm,clang}" with an instrumented version of the latest > top-of-tree compiler. It generates new reports roughly every four hours. These > reports can be used to find dead code, find fishy code, and to gauge the > effectiveness of our smoke tests. > > If you have any feedback about the bot or the coverage reports, please let me > know! > > vedant > > p.s: There is already a coverage bot which runs "check-all" and uses gcov. If > you'd prefer those reports, you can find them here -- > > http://llvm.org/reports/coverage/ > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160922/f4634269/attachment.html>
I'm testing this out and will let you know when it works. vedant> On Sep 22, 2016, at 10:29 AM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > Would it be possible to add lld to the mix? :-) > > Thanks, > Rafael > > > On 22 September 2016 at 13:05, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'd like to announce a new code coverage bot: >> >> http://lab.llvm.org:8080/coverage/coverage-reports/clang/index.html >> >> The purpose of the bot is to make high-quality coverage reports available to >> llvm developers, and to provide additional testing for clang's code coverage >> implementation. >> >> The coverage data clang generates allows the reporting tool to render execution >> counts for code regions nested within lines or macros. The tool is also capable >> of displaying coverage information for each instantiation of a function. >> >> The bot runs "check-{llvm,clang}" with an instrumented version of the latest >> top-of-tree compiler. It generates new reports roughly every four hours. These >> reports can be used to find dead code, find fishy code, and to gauge the >> effectiveness of our smoke tests. >> >> If you have any feedback about the bot or the coverage reports, please let me >> know! >> >> vedant >> >> p.s: There is already a coverage bot which runs "check-all" and uses gcov. If >> you'd prefer those reports, you can find them here -- >> >> http://llvm.org/reports/coverage/ >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Hi Vedant, This is awesome! Thanks for this great work :) — Mehdi> On Sep 22, 2016, at 10:05 AM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > I'd like to announce a new code coverage bot: > > http://lab.llvm.org:8080/coverage/coverage-reports/clang/index.html > > The purpose of the bot is to make high-quality coverage reports available to > llvm developers, and to provide additional testing for clang's code coverage > implementation. > > The coverage data clang generates allows the reporting tool to render execution > counts for code regions nested within lines or macros. The tool is also capable > of displaying coverage information for each instantiation of a function. > > The bot runs "check-{llvm,clang}" with an instrumented version of the latest > top-of-tree compiler. It generates new reports roughly every four hours. These > reports can be used to find dead code, find fishy code, and to gauge the > effectiveness of our smoke tests. > > If you have any feedback about the bot or the coverage reports, please let me > know! > > vedant > > p.s: There is already a coverage bot which runs "check-all" and uses gcov. If > you'd prefer those reports, you can find them here -- > > http://llvm.org/reports/coverage/ > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016, at 07:05 PM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev wrote:> Hi, > > I'd like to announce a new code coverage bot: > > http://lab.llvm.org:8080/coverage/coverage-reports/clang/index.html > > The purpose of the bot is to make high-quality coverage reports available > to > llvm developers, and to provide additional testing for clang's code > coverage > implementation. > > The coverage data clang generates allows the reporting tool to render > execution > counts for code regions nested within lines or macros. The tool is also > capable > of displaying coverage information for each instantiation of a function. > > The bot runs "check-{llvm,clang}" with an instrumented version of the > latest > top-of-tree compiler. It generates new reports roughly every four hours. > These > reports can be used to find dead code, find fishy code, and to gauge the > effectiveness of our smoke tests.Very nice. Any chance you could git-clone polly into tools/polly, to get Polly coverage information as well? Best, Tobias
I've configured the bot to test lld and polly. The first batch of reports for the new tools are not ready yet, but anyone can monitor the build: http://lab.llvm.org:8080/green/view/Experimental/job/clang-stage2-coverage-R/ Matthias, I will ask around about adding a link to this bot on llvm.org once it graduates from the Experimental pane on greendragon. thanks, vedant> On Sep 23, 2016, at 2:36 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016, at 07:05 PM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'd like to announce a new code coverage bot: >> >> http://lab.llvm.org:8080/coverage/coverage-reports/clang/index.html >> >> The purpose of the bot is to make high-quality coverage reports available >> to >> llvm developers, and to provide additional testing for clang's code >> coverage >> implementation. >> >> The coverage data clang generates allows the reporting tool to render >> execution >> counts for code regions nested within lines or macros. The tool is also >> capable >> of displaying coverage information for each instantiation of a function. >> >> The bot runs "check-{llvm,clang}" with an instrumented version of the >> latest >> top-of-tree compiler. It generates new reports roughly every four hours. >> These >> reports can be used to find dead code, find fishy code, and to gauge the >> effectiveness of our smoke tests. > > Very nice. Any chance you could git-clone polly into tools/polly, to get > Polly coverage information as well? > > Best, > Tobias
I noticed that certain files which exist in ToT don't appear to be getting mentioned despite having test coverage within the test suite. As a particular example, consider lib/Transforms/Scalar/RewriteStatepointsForGC.cpp. There may also be others, but that's the one I happened to notice. It's particular weird in that the gcc runs do include this particular file. Philip On 09/22/2016 10:05 AM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev wrote:> Hi, > > I'd like to announce a new code coverage bot: > > http://lab.llvm.org:8080/coverage/coverage-reports/clang/index.html > > The purpose of the bot is to make high-quality coverage reports available to > llvm developers, and to provide additional testing for clang's code coverage > implementation. > > The coverage data clang generates allows the reporting tool to render execution > counts for code regions nested within lines or macros. The tool is also capable > of displaying coverage information for each instantiation of a function. > > The bot runs "check-{llvm,clang}" with an instrumented version of the latest > top-of-tree compiler. It generates new reports roughly every four hours. These > reports can be used to find dead code, find fishy code, and to gauge the > effectiveness of our smoke tests. > > If you have any feedback about the bot or the coverage reports, please let me > know! > > vedant > > p.s: There is already a coverage bot which runs "check-all" and uses gcov. If > you'd prefer those reports, you can find them here -- > > http://llvm.org/reports/coverage/ > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
This is happening because RewriteStatepointsForGC.cpp.o isn't linked into clang, causing its coverage mapping data to be discarded. Maggie (CC'd) is working on a patch that should allow llvm-cov to produce a combined report given multiple binaries. For now, I've configured the bots to produce separate reports for opt and llc (adding to the reports we have for clang, lld, and polly). The next time it updates, you should be able to see coverage for this file in the report for opt. I'll send out a link once it's ready. vedant> On Sep 24, 2016, at 3:56 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > I noticed that certain files which exist in ToT don't appear to be getting mentioned despite having test coverage within the test suite. > > As a particular example, consider lib/Transforms/Scalar/RewriteStatepointsForGC.cpp. There may also be others, but that's the one I happened to notice. > > It's particular weird in that the gcc runs do include this particular file. > > Philip > > > On 09/22/2016 10:05 AM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'd like to announce a new code coverage bot: >> >> http://lab.llvm.org:8080/coverage/coverage-reports/clang/index.html >> >> The purpose of the bot is to make high-quality coverage reports available to >> llvm developers, and to provide additional testing for clang's code coverage >> implementation. >> >> The coverage data clang generates allows the reporting tool to render execution >> counts for code regions nested within lines or macros. The tool is also capable >> of displaying coverage information for each instantiation of a function. >> >> The bot runs "check-{llvm,clang}" with an instrumented version of the latest >> top-of-tree compiler. It generates new reports roughly every four hours. These >> reports can be used to find dead code, find fishy code, and to gauge the >> effectiveness of our smoke tests. >> >> If you have any feedback about the bot or the coverage reports, please let me >> know! >> >> vedant >> >> p.s: There is already a coverage bot which runs "check-all" and uses gcov. If >> you'd prefer those reports, you can find them here -- >> >> http://llvm.org/reports/coverage/ >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >