similar to: [PATCH v8] gcov: Coverage support

All, Here are the latest patches to expreiment with gcov profiler for xen hypervisor. I have tested current patches on Intel i686. System Details: gcc version 4.3.3 (Ubuntu 4.3.3-5ubuntu4) gcov (Ubuntu 4.3.3-5ubuntu4) 4.3.3 Kernel 2.6.28-11-generic Distribution: Ubuntu jaunty 9.04 There are some design issue which i would like to highlight here: 1. To create gcov proc dir user /proc/xen, we are

All, Here are the latest patches to expreiment with gcov profiler for xen hypervisor. I have tested current patches on Intel i686. System Details: gcc version 4.3.3 (Ubuntu 4.3.3-5ubuntu4) gcov (Ubuntu 4.3.3-5ubuntu4) 4.3.3 Kernel 2.6.28-11-generic Distribution: Ubuntu jaunty 9.04 There are some design issue which i would like to highlight here: 1. To create gcov proc dir user /proc/xen, we are

From: Frediano Ziglio <frediano.ziglio@citrix.com> Split coverage informations extracted from xencov utility. This script accept coverage blob either as file or from input and extract into files compatible with gcc format (gcda). Signed-off-by: Frediano Ziglio <frediano.ziglio@citrix.com> --- tools/misc/Makefile | 2 +- tools/misc/xencov_split | 191

Hi, tools/misc/xencov.c fails to build. NetBSD does not have MAP_LOCKED. Christoph

I just did a ./configure and then make on a fresh debian 6.0 64-bit install. ./configure caught most of the missing dependencies except the following, which caused compilation failures. 1. libncurses5-dev (I get errors from tools/misc, concerning gtraceview) 2. bin86 & bcc & iasl - during firmware compilation 3. python-dev (from tools/python/xen/lowlevel/xc) I am not sure if I was doing

rkotler at mipsswbrd006-le:~/caviumllvm/build/test$ make Making LLVM 'lit.site.cfg' file... Making LLVM unittest 'lit.site.cfg' file... ( ulimit -t 600 ; ulimit -d 512000 ; ulimit -m 512000 ; ulimit -s 8192 ; \ /usr/bin/python /home/rkotler/workspace/llvm/utils/lit/lit.py -s -v . ) XPASS: LLVM :: tools/llvm-cov/llvm-cov.test (8916 of 9784) ******************** TEST

Hi Justin , Thank you for the confirmation and we would like to know that ,going forward the clang has the support the gcc gcov format or use the -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping and get ride of gcov format . We are planing to customize the clang code coverage for embedded world ,before we start tweaking the gcov / -fprofile-instr-generate code-base ,we would like to take feedback

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 =

Umesh Kalappa <umesh.kalappa0 at gmail.com> writes: > Hi Justin , > > Thank you for the confirmation and we would like to know that ,going > forward the clang has the support the gcc gcov format or use the > -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping and get ride of gcov > format . Going forward, the -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping (which I'll refer to as

On Feb 12, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Justin is making nice commits for llvm-cov, so I thought we may continue this discussion now. > The quick-and-dirty implementation of coverage (in asan) is getting some early users and they seem to be happy. > AsanCoverage allows to collect per-function or per-basic-block coverage

On Feb 12, 2014, at 11:43 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote: > > On Feb 12, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Justin is making nice commits for llvm-cov, so I thought we may continue this

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 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

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Reid Kleckner <reid.kleckner at gmail.com> wrote: > An easier way would be to use a coverage tool like gcov to see what's > actually *used* when the app is run normally.  Then you can ask the > question, what percentage of all lines of code are dead? We need something that can do this using static analysis... Otherwise we can just use Eclipse

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 Fangrui, Many thanks for providing such detailed feedback! Please find my comments inlined below. - Ammar On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 5:59 AM Fangrui Song <maskray at google.com> wrote: > On 2020-06-26, Ammar Ben Khadra via llvm-dev wrote: > >## TL;DR > > > >We introduce bcov, an open-source binary-level coverage analysis tool [1]. > >The details are discussed

Hi, Here is the follow on patch for this problem. Please apply this from the top of the tree and rebuild. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: op Type: application/octet-stream Size: 2548 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20060315/eee8a766/attachment.obj> -------------- next part

Hi, I ran into the bug/feature request that you cannot flush gcov buffers while the app is running. They are only called when you exit the program, since the flush functions are registered with atexit(). This is the bug report: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=12144 I have what I think is a basic implementation of the `__gcov_flush` call, although I called this version `__llvm_gcov_flush`.

Heh, my ex-boss would die seeing something like this :-) Just one comment, does GCOV have a flag for a third category of lines, like "undesired to execute"? This would make the summary of <http://chandlerc.net/llvm-coverage/lib/Target/PowerPC/ PPCHazardRecognizers.cpp.gcov.html> much more favorable. Nice work! Cheers, Gabor

Can llvm generate warnings for unused C++ code using global analysis? If I could use llvm to figure out what code I can delete in a 20 year old app with millions of lines of code, this alone would defend spending time on making the app build with llvm, even if we don't actually run the code generated... -- Øyvind Harboe - Can Zylin Consulting help on your project? US toll free