similar to: Unable to generate lcov test coverage reports (Out of memory error)

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 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

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, 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 =

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 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

Hello everyone! I'm Ayush Tomar, junior undergrad in Computer Science from New Delhi, India. I love C++ coding and working on machine learning and information retrieval project. I was exploring the GSoC ideas for Xapian and the project on "Adding Weighting Schemes" looked really interesting to me. I wanted to work on text mining/IR this summer and this idea seems perfect! I have

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

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

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

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

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, 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 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

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

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:

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

Folks, I was looking at LCOV (http://llvm.org/reports/coverage/) and it's nice and all, but it doesn't have much information about which commit is that and the difference between two commits. We could then have a that report for every buildbot (check-all, test-suite, etc) for the patches specific to the build, per architecture. How easy would be to do that for any given buildbot? Another