similar to: llvm-cov accepting many binary files for aggregated coverage reports

Hi David, In my use case, our test teams want a single html index file that links to an aggregated coverage report that covers an entire code repository. I see that there is a new patch of generating html reports, is there a way to index all of the individual source files into one summary report, where there are many binary files to consider? *> I don't see why a wrapper script (that

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

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

My question is twofold. Part 1: My data looks like this: (example set, real data has 2*10^6 rows) binary<-c(1,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0) Chromosome<-c(1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2) start<-c(12,17,18,20,25,36,12,15,16,17,19) Table<-cbind(Chromosome,start,binary) Chromosome start binary [1,] 1 12 1 [2,] 1 17 1 [3,] 1 18 1 [4,] 1

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

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! UBSan bootstrap bot fails with error report on 5 llvm-cov and llvm-profdata lit-tests: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/builds/4526/steps/check-llvm%20ubsan/logs/stdio Also see http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=20815. The error reports look vaild: in general it's incorrect to load uint64_t, or even structures like "RawHeader" or

Hi all, I'm trying to support llvm-cov for a new architecture and I have successfully built compiler-rt for my arch. Following steps shown in https://clang.llvm.org/docs/SourceBasedCodeCoverage.html , I encountered an error for the last step(step of llvm-cov show). The command line was (supposed my arch is XXXX) "llvm-cov show -arch=XXXX ./foo -instr-profile=foo.profdata" and the

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 all! It seems I came across on issue with coverage mapping (http://www.llvm.org/docs/CoverageMappingFormat.html) check on: llvm revision: r228136 clang Last Changed Rev: 228121 build: Debug+Asserts OS: ubuntu 14.04 Here is simple snippets test1.c: NOT OK ================== #include <stdio.h> static int foo() { return 42; } int main() { return 0; } ================== cp src/test1.c

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 vedant, The program didn't pass the checking "OF->getArch() != Triple(Arch).getArch()" loadBinaryFormat in CoverageMappingReader.cpp and returned an error. It's because "OF->getArch()" returned null and "Triple(Arch).getArch()" returned XXXX(name of my arch). The returned value of " OF->getArch()" is decided by "

I've been working on adding code coverage support to my ELLCC project (http://ellcc.org) and I thought it would be nice to fun the index page of the HTML output of llvm-cov into something a little prettier and more useful. The initial result is here: http://ellcc.org/coverage/ If there is any interest, I'll submit the llvm-cov changes. -Rich

Hi! I am trying to get a combined coverage report from multiple executables. Looking at earlier discussions [1, 2], it looks like this is supposed to work. I am having some difficulty getting this to work as I would expect it to work, however. Following is a simple case to explain: ////////// shared.h #include <string> void Print1(const std::string& msg); void Print2(const

I've started looking at the state of code coverage recently; we figured LLVM itself would be a good test to figure out how mature it is, so I gave it a shot. My experience: 1. You have to specify -DLLVM_USE_LINKER=gold (or maybe lld works; I didn't try). If you link with binutils ld, the program will generate broken profile information. Apparently, the linked binary is missing the

Hi vedant, 1. The definition is from llvm/Supprot/ELF.h. But this machine information(e_machine) is given to compiler at lib/MC/ELFObjectWriter.cpp. I greped the whole llvm project and found that e_machine was assigned at only two files. One was lib/MC/ELFObjectWriter.cpp(there was an comment said “e_machine=target”) and the other was tools/obj2yaml/elf2yaml.cpp(GDB stopped only at the

On 6/18/2017 3:51 PM, Vedant Kumar wrote: >> My experience: >> >> 1. You have to specify -DLLVM_USE_LINKER=gold (or maybe lld works; I >> didn't try). If you link with binutils ld, the program will generate >> broken profile information. Apparently, the linked binary is missing >> the __llvm_prf_names section. This took me half a day to figure out.

Hi Sadrul, > On Mar 8, 2018, at 7:40 PM, Sadrul Chowdhury via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi! I am trying to get a combined coverage report from multiple > executables. Looking at earlier discussions [1, 2], it looks like this > is supposed to work. I am having some difficulty getting this to work > as I would expect it to work, however. Following is

Hello, We have a user that wants to get the code coverage report for his library without turning on instrumentation for the library clients or change how they are built (only the library is instrumented). It seems like the inline member functions defined in headers are not instrumented in this case because the clients are not instrumented. The library itself does not have a copy of the inline

Hi vedant, 1. First, I think your theory is right that llvm’s object file reading libraries do not “understand” the architecture I’m working on. Since I’m using binutils as assembler which means llvm can only provide asm and object file is provided by biutils. I think these ELF header information is provided by my binutils now, so maybe I have to modify binutils code to provide ELF header