search for: coverages

Hi, Alan Really very excited to receive your email and sorry to be slow replying, it has been exceptionally busy over the last few days ;( Your explanation made the problem clear to me. So gcov branch coverage should be called condition coverage and clang region coverage is branch coverage in fact(also known as *decision/C1*), right? And llvm/clang will support all the following coverage

Hi, llvm/clang experts I need to get the branch coverage for some testing code. But i found gcov can't give a expected coverage which may count some 'hidden branch' in (See stackoverflow answer <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/42003783/lcov-gcov-branch-coverage-with-c-producing-branches-all-over-the-place>). Instead, I turn to use clang and the 'source-based code

Hi, Alan Thanks for making it clear. But I was more confused now :( I tested on a simple program and used both gcov and lcov to get branch coverage. The code and build commands as below: *Example simple.cc* #include <string> // If not comment this line, the branch coverage won't reach to 100% // #include <iostream> int main(int argc, const char* argv[]) { std::string str =

The bot hiccupped earlier but looks stable now. The average turnaround seems to be 3.5 hours. clang: http://lab.llvm.org:8080/coverage/coverage-reports/clang/index.html lld: http://lab.llvm.org:8080/coverage/coverage-reports/lld/index.html polly: http://lab.llvm.org:8080/coverage/coverage-reports/polly/index.html > On Sep 23, 2016, at 11:58 PM, Tobias Grosser via llvm-dev

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

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:33 PM <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 4, 2019, at 4:41 PM, Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:06 PM <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > >> Hi Nico, >> >> Sorry for the delay, I've been OOO. The llvm-cov bot should produce >> reports for llvm-undname starting today. >>

Hi , I could see the LLVM code coverage info at the below links http://lab.llvm.org:8080/coverage/coverage-reports/clang/index.html http://llvm.org/reports/coverage/ I am interested in the branch coverage metric. I could not find the branch coverage related info . Can anyone let me know how to find it. If it is not available , I am happy to work on it, if I can get some details on why

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 2:11 PM <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 6, 2019, at 9:56 AM, Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:33 PM <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Jun 4, 2019, at 4:41 PM, Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:06 PM <vsk at

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:06 PM <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Nico, > > Sorry for the delay, I've been OOO. The llvm-cov bot should produce > reports for llvm-undname starting today. > Thanks! It looks like http://lab.llvm.org:8080/coverage/coverage-reports/index.html now has an "llvm-undname" entry, but

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,

Hi, I''ve installed coverage (gem install coverage) and try to run tests with -rcoverage option on, but following error occurs: ruby: No such file to load -- coverage (LoadError) I try: ruby -rcoverage mytest.rb 1. I have rubygems in evn var RUBYOPT 2. Gem seems to be installed properly (I can read doc via gems, the files exist in the ../gem/... dirs) Does anyone know what is the

Hi All, We trying to use clang+llvm to generate the gcc coverage format as clang version 3.6.0 $clang --coverage -Xclang -coverage-cfg-checksum -Xclang -coverage-no-function-names-in-data -Xclang -coverage-version='407*' test.c $a.out $llvm-cov gcov test.gcda Unexpected version: *704. Invalid .gcno File! Debugging the above cause ,But any hints from experts here ,will help a lot

Hello, The following patch series enables LLVM coverage support for the Xen hypervisor. This first patches are a re-organization of the gcov support, in order to make the support generic for all coverage technologies. This is mostly a name change from gcov -> cov in several places and files, together with the addition of a Kconfig option in order to enable LLVM coverage. Patch 7 introduces

Hello LLVM devs, I'm running lots of experiments with LibFuzzer these days -- it's an amazing tool! I've noticed something weird while examining the effect of various coverage options: for one of my benchmarks, the fuzzer was achieving a higher total coverage before April 2016, when -sanitizer-coverage-prune-blocks became true by default (commit

Hello, Our goals for the code coverage BoF (10/19) were to find areas where we can improve the coverage tooling, and to learn more about how coverage is used. I'd like to thank all of the attendees for their input and for making the BoF productive. Special thanks to Mandeep Grang, who volunteered as a mic runner at the last minute. In this email I'll share my (rough) notes and outline

Hello, I have few questions about coverage. Is there any user-facing documentation for clang's "-coverage" flag? The coverage instrumentation seems to happen before asan, and so if asan is also enabled asan will instrument accesses to @__llvm_gcov_ctr. This is undesirable and so we'd like to skip these accesses. Looks like GEP around @__llvm_gcov_ctr have special metadata

I have a dataset that looks like this (many other variables not shown. including a unique row identifier "id"): > summary(hits) query lib coverage percid Length:80664 Length:80664 Min. :0.080 Min. :0.2250 Mode :character Mode :character 1st Qu.:0.980 1st Qu.:0.8160 Median :1.000

Another question is about the performance of coverage's at-exit actions (dumping coverage data on disk). I've built chromium's base_unittests with -fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage and the coverage's at-exit hook takes 22 seconds, which is 44x more than I am willing to pay. Most of the time is spent here: #0 0x00007ffff3b034cd in msync () at ../sysdeps/unix/syscall-template.S:82 #1

Regarding performance, I've made a simple coverage with counters and compared it with AsanCoverage. AsanCoverage produces code like this: mov 0xe86cce(%rip),%al test %al,%al je 48b4a0 # to call __sanitizer_cov ... callq 4715b0 <__sanitizer_cov> A simple counter-based thing (which just increments counters and does nothing else useful) produces this: incq 0xe719c6(%rip) The

On Feb 17, 2014, at 5:13 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > Then my question: will there be any objection if I disentangle AsanCoverage from ASan and make it a separate LLVM phase with the proper clang driver support? > Or it will be an unwelcome competition with the planned clang coverage? I don’t view it as a competition, but assuming that we both succeed in our