similar to: [LLVMdev] DejaGnu test-suite coverage

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Gabor Greif <gabor at mac.com> wrote: > Heh, > > my ex-boss would die seeing something like this :-) It's not too hard to produce, let me know if you want details, or ping me on IRC. > Just one comment, does GCOV have a flag for > a third category of lines, like "undesired to execute"? Nope. I'm a subscriber to the

On May 26, 2008, at 11:55 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > This would make the summary of > <http://chandlerc.net/llvm-coverage/lib/Target/PowerPC/ > PPCHazardRecognizers.cpp.gcov.html> > much more favorable. > > I'm not seeing the bad aspect of this particular file? It has pretty > good coverage, is code calling into this "bad"? If so, then >

Hello, After a fun discussion regarding unit testing and coverage metrics, it came up that we don't have coverage analysis for LLVM proper. With a certain amount of experience in this arena, I set about building a nice overview. I don't have the toolset and commands fully integrated into the build system, and I'm not sure if doing so would be appropriate (its a somewhat fragile and

On May 26, 2008, at 9:05 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > Hello, > > After a fun discussion regarding unit testing and coverage metrics, > it came up that we don't have coverage analysis for LLVM proper. > With a certain amount of experience in this arena, I set about > building a nice overview. I don't have the toolset and commands > fully integrated into the

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > I think he means the lines like: > > switch (Opcode) { > > default: assert(0 && "Unknown load!"); > > > where the default case is never executed. > > I would personally appreciate expected to fail tests that ensure the assertions actually catch the bad inputs

Hi, > > I think he means the lines like: > > > > switch (Opcode) { > > > > default: assert(0 && "Unknown load!"); > > > > > > where the default case is never executed. > > > I would personally appreciate expected to fail tests that ensure the > assertions actually catch the bad inputs that they were designed to

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

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

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 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 =

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 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

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

Hi Everyone, I have uploaded a patch that allows one to successfully gather gcov/gcda coverage information on programs which unload shared libraries. It¹s a simple fix, just adding a few COMPILER_RT_VISIBILITY (i.e. __attribute__((visibility("hidden")))) in GCDAProfiling.c. Now, I¹d like to include a test program to demonstrate the fix. AFAICT, there seems to be a single test for

Hi all, I was trying to generate lcov test coverage reports for xapian-core but got an out of memory error: $ lcov --capture --directory . --output-file xapian-core.info Capturing coverage data from . Found gcov version: 4.7.3 Scanning . for .gcda files ... Found 270 data files in . Processing bin/xapian-progsrv.gcda Out of memory! These are the steps I followed in xapian-core directory

We do have a gcov "flush" implementation. It should be emitted with the normal coverage code. Is it not showing up? -bw On Feb 5, 2013, at 4:20 PM, John Harrison <ash.gti at gmail.com> wrote: > 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

Hi Sylvestre, it seems the code coverage runs are not updated since a couple of months. http://llvm.org/reports/coverage/tools/polly/lib/Support/SCEVValidator.cpp.gcov.html The last run was on 2017-05-20 02:07:48. Are you still maintaining these? Is this on purpose? Any chance this could be fixed? Best, Tobias

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

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`.

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