similar to: [LLVMdev] LCOV per commit

I could not easily locate this on http://llvm.org/reports/coverage/ so asking here: what workload is the coverage computed over? IOW, what all does the bot run to get this coverage information? -- Sanjoy On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:17 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> > wrote:

Le 06/05/2015 21:05, Renato Golin a écrit : > On 6 May 2015 at 19:15, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: >> I could not easily locate this on http://llvm.org/reports/coverage/ so >> asking here: what workload is the coverage computed over? IOW, what >> all does the bot run to get this coverage information? > Nothing is clear in that page. No

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

I’m working to implement Source Based Code Coverage in a workflow that uses lcov for report generation. We’ve customized our llvm-cov to add a command to convert the SBCC counter data to lcov’s ‘.info’ format. The problem is that the region-based counter definitions in SBCC can span source code regions that can contain blank lines (or lines with only comments). Converting this to lcov’s

Hi We're a group of 5 CS undergrads. As a part of our Software Engineering course, we are required to work on a large scale software to understand the design of such software. For this, open source is the best choice. We have around 1.5 months for the project (mid-March to April end) and would like to know whether there is any sort of work which can be taken up by us. Looking forward to your

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 , 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

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

Hello guys, Today I tried to find the amount of LLD(elf) code covered by our test cases. So my aim was to run the LLD tests we have (run check-lld task) and find out which code was executed/covered and which was not. I used the approach from the next article to do that: http://logan.tw/posts/2015/04/28/check-code-coverage-with-clang-and-lcov/#create-a-wrapper-script-for-lcov In short, it is

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 Mitch, Thank you for the response. 1. You don't need to build the library with `-fsanitize-coverage=...`, using `-fsanitize=fuzzer-no-link,address` should be sufficient. - Acknowledged 2. (although you can actually build object files/shared libraries with -fsanitize=fuzzer, and the libFuzzer main won't be linked, if this makes your build process easier). - with just the *fuzzer

Thanks a lot for doing this. Having it automated an in a bot would be really nice. Cheers, Rafael George Rimar <grimar at accesssoftek.com> writes: > Hello guys, > > Today I tried to find the amount of LLD(elf) code covered by our test cases. So my aim was to run the LLD tests we have (run check-lld task) and find out which code was executed/covered and which was not. > >

Dear All, I am helping our test team migrate from gcov to llvmcov. They currently generate HTML reports using lcov to easily navigate where coverage is missing. However, there does not seem to be a Windows compatible solution for generating HTML reports using the llvm-cov tools. A possible solution to this problem is for llvm-cov to create html pages that include an overall coverage summary

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

Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > Harlan Haskins has recently submitted a patch (for review) that implements > --format=html for llvm-cov tool. Please take a look at that patch. For reference, the review thread starts here: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20160229/336622.html > David > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at

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 am working of using libfuzzer and asan to test out a third-party library. As demonstrated in the tutorial, I wrote a fuzz target to fuzz a specific function in the library. The fuzz target is then linked to the library and compiles clean and I do see some tests generated by the fuzzer. However, I have some questions regarding the "right" way to go about doing this. I have doubts that

On 6 February 2013 22:13, Arnaud de Grandmaison <arnaud.adegm at gmail.com>wrote: > ** > > I think we just need to increase coverage. Everything you can do to build > (even slightly) differently than other bots is good to have. > Hi Arnaud, I agree building with { CMake, autoconf } x { Cold, Warm } will catch more corner cases than defaulting all builds to the same

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