Project Home
Project Home		 Source Code
Source Code		 Documents
Documents		 Wiki
Wiki		 Discussion Forums
Discussions		 Project Information
Project Info
Core Development Tools/Discussion/General/Code Coverage doesn't seem right/List of Posts
Forum Topic - Code Coverage doesn't seem right: (12 Items)
   
Update
Andy Pekarske
02/21/2008 5:18 PM
post5194
Code Coverage doesn't seem right   
I have the following piece of code that when compiled with code coverage turned on and run on the target it displays 
this coverage in the Momentics Code Coverage perspective.  Green is covered, red is not.

green 175          if (-1 != scp->write_fd) {
red     176             close(scp->write_fd);
green 177             scp->write_fd = -1;
red     178          }
 

I don't see how it is possible to be green for one line inside an if statement, and red for another (line 177 and line 
176).  I have the build setup as debug and added the -g option to both the compile and link stage.  Any ideas why else 
my coverage would show up screwy?
Adam Mallory
02/21/2008 6:40 PM
post5195
RE: Code Coverage doesn't seem right   
Andy Pekarske wrote:
> I have the following piece of code that when compiled with
> code coverage turned on and run on the target it displays
> this coverage in the Momentics Code Coverage perspective. Green is
> covered, red is not. 
> 
> green 175          if (-1 != scp->write_fd) {
> red     176             close(scp->write_fd);
> green 177             scp->write_fd = -1;
> red     178          }
> 
> 
> I don't see how it is possible to be green for one line
> inside an if statement, and red for another (line 177 and
> line 176).  I have the build setup as debug and added the -g
> option to both the compile and link stage.  Any ideas why
> else my coverage would show up screwy?

Optimization level can be a problem.  Code paths can be refactored, moved
around and even eliminated which can throw off the debug information
co-relation.  Try building -O0 with -g and see if that helps.

 Cheers,
    Adam

   QNX Software Systems Ltd.
   [ amallory@qnx.com ]
   ---------------------------------------------------
   With a PC, I always felt limited by the software available.
   On Unix, I am limited only by my knowledge.
       --Peter J. Schoenster
Andy Pekarske
02/22/2008 10:42 AM
post5209
Re: RE: Code Coverage doesn't seem right   
I am linking in libraries in this application as well and maybe they have to be compiled with code coverage turned on as
 well.  The -O0 option didn't seem to change the results.

Thanks for the reply though!
Adam Mallory
02/22/2008 10:48 AM
post5210
RE: RE: Code Coverage doesn't seem right   
If the code snipet you're showing is from the library, then I would agree.
If it's a function from the same compilation unit that is build -O0 -g, then
I'm not sure why the debug info doesn't line up.

Any chance you can post a test case?


-- 
 Cheers,
    Adam

   QNX Software Systems
   [ amallory@harman.com ]
   ---------------------------------------------------
   With a PC, I always felt limited by the software available.
   On Unix, I am limited only by my knowledge.
       --Peter J. Schoenster 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Pekarske [mailto:apekarske@zebra.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 10:42 AM
> To: general-toolchain
> Subject: Re: RE: Code Coverage doesn't seem right
> 
> I am linking in libraries in this application as well and maybe they have
> to be compiled with code coverage turned on as well.  The -O0 option
> didn't seem to change the results.
> 
> Thanks for the reply though!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> General
> http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post5209
Mike Zinni
02/29/2008 9:16 AM
post5399
Re: RE: RE: Code Coverage doesn't seem right   
Adam - 

I'm working with Andy to get test coverage data on some of our new QNX code, so I figured I'd touch base with you here. 
We're still running into this issue and could use some help. Unfortunately, we can't post our production code to the 
forum, but I've created a sample workspace that exhibits the same behavior. 

The ZIP file containing the workspace (and 2 projects) is about 2MB. What's the best way to get this to you?

Thanks,

Mike Zinni
Alex Chapiro
02/29/2008 10:01 AM
post5404
Re: RE: RE: Code Coverage doesn't seem right   
You can use mail attachment. Send it to my account achapiro@qnx.com. Please change extension of archive to something 
neutral.

Alex
Mike Zinni
02/29/2008 10:38 AM
post5411
Re: RE: RE: Code Coverage doesn't seem right   
Thanks for the reply Alex. I'll be sending you an email shortly with my sample workspace attached...

Mike
Alex Chapiro
03/11/2008 2:41 PM
post5703
Re: Code Coverage doesn't seem right   
Sorry for delay, at last I can arrange some time to investigate this 
issue. Do you still need it?

Best regards,

Alex


Mike Zinni wrote:
>
> Thanks for the reply Alex. I'll be sending you an email shortly with 
> my sample workspace attached...
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> General
> http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post5411
>
Mike Zinni
03/11/2008 3:00 PM
post5705
RE: Code Coverage doesn't seem right   
Yea, definitely still interested in what's going on here... 

Thanks!

Mike 

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Chapiro [mailto:achapiro@qnx.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 2:41 PM
To: general-toolchain
Subject: Re: Code Coverage doesn't seem right

Sorry for delay, at last I can arrange some time to investigate this
issue. Do you still need it?

Best regards,

Alex


Mike Zinni wrote:
>
> Thanks for the reply Alex. I'll be sending you an email shortly with 
> my sample workspace attached...
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> General
> http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post5411
>


_______________________________________________
General
http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post5703
 
- CONFIDENTIAL-
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, and may also be legally privileged.  If you are not the 
intended recipient, you may not review, use, copy, or distribute this message. If you receive this email in error, 
please notify the sender immediately by reply email and then delete this email.
Alex Chapiro
03/12/2008 4:15 PM
post5746
Re: RE: Code Coverage doesn't seem right   
I built your test case on 4.2.1 and ran code coverage session using the latest code. I attached result to this post 
(just a screen shot). Do these results make sense?
Attachment: Image Shapes.jpg 100.34 KB
Mike Zinni
03/12/2008 4:37 PM
post5747
RE: RE: Code Coverage doesn't seem right   
These numbers certainly look better, although I'm not sure they're
completely accurate. 

I'm still curious why the constructor and destructor have "uncovered"
code in them, even though I know they're being called. It's contributing
to the coverage number for the Rectangle.cpp file being too low (55%).
From the looks of things, the only function not called is
Rectangle::getWidth(), which should yield a higher coverage number for
the whole file (maybe 80% or so)...

Thanks!

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Chapiro [mailto:achapiro@qnx.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:16 PM
To: general-toolchain
Subject: Re: RE: Code Coverage doesn't seem right

I built your test case on 4.2.1 and ran code coverage session using the
latest code. I attached result to this post (just a screen shot). Do
these results make sense?

_______________________________________________
General
http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post5746
 
- CONFIDENTIAL-
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, and may also be legally privileged.  If you are not the 
intended recipient, you may not review, use, copy, or distribute this message. If you receive this email in error, 
please notify the sender immediately by reply email and then delete this email.
Alex Chapiro
03/13/2008 1:10 PM
post5787
Re: Code Coverage doesn't seem right   
Yes, I agree, numbers still don't look credible for C++ programs (not 
always, I'd like to say:-). I'm working on fixing this problem and hope 
next integration build will bring essential improvement

Mike Zinni wrote:
>
> These numbers certainly look better, although I'm not sure they're
> completely accurate.
>
> I'm still curious why the constructor and destructor have "uncovered"
> code in them, even though I know they're being called. It's contributing
> to the coverage number for the Rectangle.cpp file being too low (55%).
> From the looks of things, the only function not called is
> Rectangle::getWidth(), which should yield a higher coverage number for
> the whole file (maybe 80% or so)...
>
> Thanks!
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Chapiro [mailto:achapiro@qnx.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:16 PM
> To: general-toolchain
> Subject: Re: RE: Code Coverage doesn't seem right
>
> I built your test case on 4.2.1 and ran code coverage session using the
> latest code. I attached result to this post (just a screen shot). Do
> these results make sense?
>
> _______________________________________________
> General
> http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post5746
>  
> - CONFIDENTIAL-
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, and may 
> also be legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, 
> you may not review, use, copy, or distribute this message. If you 
> receive this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by 
> reply email and then delete this email.
>
> _______________________________________________
> General
> http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post5747
>

Return


  A subsidiary of BlackBerry             All content ©2004-2013, QNX Software Systems