similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM Coverage GCDA Flush API

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

The way `-ftest-coverage -fprofile-arcs` works at the moment it only flushes via `atexit()`. This patch allows you to flush the coverage at any point by calling `__llvm_gcov_flush` the same way `__gcov_flush` works for gcc. If there is another way of doing this, I might of missed it but I was looking for `__gcov_flush` and I did not find the equivalent in llvm at the moment. -- John Harrison

Ah, my mistake. So this already works. I guess that bug is out of date, since this feature works already. -- John Harrison On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Joshua Cranmer <pidgeot18 at gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/6/2013 11:43 AM, John Harrison wrote: > >> The way `-ftest-coverage -fprofile-arcs` works at the moment it only >> flushes via `atexit()`. This patch allows you

Why does __gcov_flush only flush the current compilation unit? For gcc __gcov_flush flushes all of the loaded files. Is there a way to have __gcov_flush flush everything? -- John Harrison On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:24 AM, John Harrison <ash.gti at gmail.com> wrote: > Ah, my mistake. So this already works. I guess that bug is out of date, > since this feature works already. >

Yikes! It only flushes the counts for the current compilation unit? That sounds like a terrible bug. Can you file a bugzilla report, please? On Feb 6, 2013, at 12:05 PM, John Harrison <ash.gti at gmail.com> wrote: > Why does __gcov_flush only flush the current compilation unit? For gcc __gcov_flush flushes all of the loaded files. > > Is there a way to have __gcov_flush flush

On 2/6/2013 11:43 AM, John Harrison wrote: > The way `-ftest-coverage -fprofile-arcs` works at the moment it only > flushes via `atexit()`. This patch allows you to flush the coverage at > any point by calling `__llvm_gcov_flush` the same way `__gcov_flush` > works for gcc. > > If there is another way of doing this, I might of missed it but I was > looking for

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, 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 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

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 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

Updated set of patches for coverage. Changes: - change copyright lines - use gcov: instead of cover: in commit comment - use #ifdef in xen/common/sysctl.c instead of dummy inline function - added base documentation in docs/misc - added -h option to xencov

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

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

Hi All, I want to provide a solution that presents code coverage reports that include the aggregated code-counts across many binaries. Our test engineers currently do this using gcov-mode by merged .gcda data files. We can do a similar merge of the .profraw files, so that the many binaries are represented in one .profdata file; However, llvm-cov will only generate reports based on one binary at

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, 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 =