From: "Jørgen Kvalsvik" <jorgen.kvalsvik@woven-planet.global>
To: Sebastian Huber <sebastian.huber@embedded-brains.de>,
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add condition coverage profiling
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2022 04:04:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c2c3cf24-3861-d612-4ea1-4cd0dfe22054@woven-planet.global> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ad3f098f-9caa-b656-47e8-6cd1b216fec4@embedded-brains.de>
On 12/07/2022 16:05, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Hello Jørgen,
>
> thanks for the updated patch. I used it for a test suite run and the results
> look quite good.
>
> Could you please add this hunk to your patch set:
>
> diff --git a/libgcc/libgcov-merge.c b/libgcc/libgcov-merge.c
> index 89741f637e1..9e3e8ee5657 100644
> --- a/libgcc/libgcov-merge.c
> +++ b/libgcc/libgcov-merge.c
> @@ -33,6 +33,11 @@ void __gcov_merge_add (gcov_type *counters __attribute__
> ((unused)),
> unsigned n_counters __attribute__ ((unused))) {}
> #endif
>
> +#ifdef L_gcov_merge_ior
> +void __gcov_merge_ior (gcov_type *counters __attribute__ ((unused)),
> + unsigned n_counters __attribute__ ((unused))) {}
> +#endif
> +
> #ifdef L_gcov_merge_topn
> void __gcov_merge_topn (gcov_type *counters __attribute__ ((unused)),
> unsigned n_counters __attribute__ ((unused))) {}
>
> It is necessary to use gcov in freestanding environments (inhibit_libc is defined).
>
> The condition profiling found one spot for which we have insufficient condition
> coverage:
>
> function _Leap_year called 227 returned 100% blocks executed 100%
> 227: 54:static bool _Leap_year(
> -: 55: uint32_t year
> -: 56:)
> -: 57:{
> 227: 58: return (((year % 4) == 0) && ((year % 100) != 0)) || ((year %
> 400) == 0);
> branch 0 taken 19% (fallthrough)
> branch 1 taken 81%
> branch 2 taken 16% (fallthrough)
> branch 3 taken 84%
> branch 4 taken 4% (fallthrough)
> branch 5 taken 96%
> conditions covered 5/6
> condition 1 not covered (false)
> -: 59:}
>
> This is because we don't test with the year 2100 for example. This value would
> result in:
>
> year % 4 == 0: true
> year % 100 != 0: false
> year % 400 == 0: false
>
> It was not immediately clear to me what the
>
> "conditions covered 5/6
> condition 1 not covered (false)"
>
> is supposed to tell me. I guess a reasonable interpretation is: condition 1
> (which is "(year % 100) != 0" should be false and determine the outcome of the
> decision.
>
> What could be a bit confusing is that we have "conditions covered 5/6", however,
> there are only three conditions (0: (year % 4) == 0, 1: (year % 100) != 0, 2:
> (year % 400) == 0). Maybe it would be more clear if the report says "condition
> variants covered 5/6" or something like this.
>
Hello,
Thanks for the feedback. I'll apply the patch, no problem.
As for output I was honestly never really too happy with the output, and hoped
something would leap out during development (it didn't). I modeled most of it
after what the branch coverage output, and I'll give it a bit of thinking to see
if I can make it more intuitive at least.
Thanks,
Jørgen
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-13 2:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-07-11 10:02 Jørgen Kvalsvik
2022-07-12 14:05 ` Sebastian Huber
2022-07-13 2:04 ` Jørgen Kvalsvik [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2022-10-12 10:16 Jørgen Kvalsvik
2022-10-18 0:17 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2022-10-18 10:13 ` Jørgen Kvalsvik
2022-07-15 11:39 Jørgen Kvalsvik
2022-07-15 11:47 ` Jørgen Kvalsvik
2022-07-15 13:31 ` Sebastian Huber
2022-07-15 13:47 ` Jørgen Kvalsvik
2022-08-02 7:58 ` Jørgen Kvalsvik
2022-08-04 7:43 ` Sebastian Huber
2022-08-04 9:13 ` Jørgen Kvalsvik
2022-03-21 11:55 Jørgen Kvalsvik
2022-03-24 16:08 ` Martin Liška
2022-03-25 19:44 ` Jørgen Kvalsvik
2022-03-28 13:39 ` Martin Liška
2022-03-28 13:52 ` Jørgen Kvalsvik
2022-03-28 14:40 ` Jørgen Kvalsvik
2022-04-07 12:04 ` Martin Liška
2022-04-19 14:22 ` Jørgen Kvalsvik
2022-04-07 16:53 ` Sebastian Huber
2022-04-08 7:28 ` Jørgen Kvalsvik
2022-04-08 7:33 ` Jørgen Kvalsvik
2022-04-08 8:50 ` Sebastian Huber
2022-04-04 8:14 ` Sebastian Huber
2022-04-05 7:04 ` Sebastian Huber
2022-04-05 20:07 ` Jørgen Kvalsvik
2022-04-06 7:35 ` Sebastian Huber
2022-04-17 11:27 ` Jørgen Kvalsvik
2022-04-22 5:37 ` Sebastian Huber
2022-04-22 10:13 ` Jørgen Kvalsvik
2022-07-08 13:45 ` Sebastian Huber
2022-07-11 7:26 ` Jørgen Kvalsvik
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=c2c3cf24-3861-d612-4ea1-4cd0dfe22054@woven-planet.global \
--to=jorgen.kvalsvik@woven-planet.global \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=sebastian.huber@embedded-brains.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).