From: ransom@cs.pdx.edu
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Janis Johnson <janis187@earthlink.net>
Subject: [RFC] gcov tool, comparing coverage across platforms
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:41:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1a2da76c1e1cee6a2486ac9ef61bd3c7@cs.pdx.edu> (raw)
We are a group of undergrads at Portland State University who accepted
as our senior capstone software engineering project a proposed tool for
use with gcov for summarizing gcov outputs for a given piece of source
code tested on multiple architecture/OS platforms. A summary of the
initial proposal is here:
http://www.clutchplate.org/gcov/gcov_proposal.txt
A rough overview of our proposed design is as follows:
We would build a tool which would accept as input:
on the command line, paths to each .gcov file to be included in the
summary,
each of these to be followed by a string which would be the platform
identifier for
that .gcov file.
The .gcov files would be combined so that the format would parallel
the existing output,
with the summarized report listing each line of the source once,
followed immediately
by a line for each platform id and the coverage data for that
platform.
Our closest interpretation of this is to provide a tool in the form of
a shell script which would provide a listing very much like the current
gcov output, but which would for each line or section of source provide
coverage information for each platform with a note associating each
output with its specific platform identifier.
Current questions include whether this tool needs to be used on
platforms for which a bourne shell script is inappropriate and whether
this tool needs to be coded in C instead. Also, whether the -a, -b, -c
and -f output types from gcov all need to be accounted for or whether
only some of these outputs are of types for which cross-platform
comparison makes sense. We have little doubt that regular users of gcov
will see other concerns as obvious which we haven't foreseen at all. We
welcome exactly these observations.
Most importantly, since there is no one clear party who has
commissioned this tool, we need input as to whether we are on the right
track to build a useful tool. Our time is limited and our deadline for
a finished item is the end of July. We would be most grateful for any
comment or guidance, any instance of a point a user might need to make
use of this tool.
Thanks,
Jesse Burkett
gcov capstone team at PSU
gcov-capstone@cs.pdx.edu
next reply other threads:[~2005-06-23 18:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-06-23 18:41 ransom [this message]
2005-06-27 12:18 ` Nathan Sidwell
2005-06-27 16:40 ` Joe Buck
2005-06-27 15:05 Dan Kegel
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=1a2da76c1e1cee6a2486ac9ef61bd3c7@cs.pdx.edu \
--to=ransom@cs.pdx.edu \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=janis187@earthlink.net \
/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).