<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks David, I will look at the additional complexity for
adding this feature.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Maggie</p>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Xinliang David Li <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:xinliangli@gmail.com" target="_blank">xinliangli@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Ok -- this sounds like a reasonable use case so personally I don't have strong objection to adding this feature (assuming it does not add too much additional complexity to llvm-cov implementation). Perhaps we can discuss it more in the actual code review?<div><br></div><div>thanks,</div><div><br></div><div>David</div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:46 AM, p23 power <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:p23power@gmail.com" target="_blank">p23power@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><span><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Hi David,</span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">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?</span></div></span><span style="font-size:12.8px"><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><span><div><i><span style="font-size:12.8px">> I don't see why a wrapper script (that passes object file to </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">llvm</span><span style="font-size:12.8px">-</span><span style="font-size:12.8px">cov</span><span style="font-size:12.8px"> one by one) won't work well</span><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></i></div></span></span><span><span style="font-size:12.8px"><div style="font-style:italic"><i><br></i></div><div>If the functionality to generate the toplevel html index page for one binary is embedded in llvm-cov, how will a wrapper script generate the <span style="font-size:12.8px">toplevel html index page for a code-repository that is tested across multiple binaries.</span></div></span></span><span style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><div style="font-style:italic"><i><br></i></div><i>> If </i></span><span style="font-style:italic;font-size:12.8px">many</span><span style="font-style:italic;font-size:12.8px"> binaries share some library code, it can be confusing to show the </span><span style="font-style:italic;font-size:12.8px">aggregated</span><span style="font-style:italic;font-size:12.8px"> </span><span style="font-style:italic;font-size:12.8px">coverage</span><span style="font-style:italic;font-size:12.8px"> data of the library as if they are valid for any individual </span><span style="font-style:italic;font-size:12.8px">binary</span><span style="font-style:italic;font-size:12.8px">.</span><br><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div></span><span><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">The functionality to do this merge of profile data across many binaries already exists in llvm-profdata. Our test engineers do not find this confusing, on the contrary they find it very helpful, w</span><span style="font-size:12.8px">here they are looking for an aggregated coverage report.</span></div></span><span style="font-size:12.8px"><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><span><div><i><span style="font-size:12.8px">> It seems to me that a per-library </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">coverage</span><span style="font-size:12.8px"> report is more appropriate here.</span></i><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div></span></span><span><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">I'm not sure how this differs from generating a single report across an entire code-repository; passing the code-repository as a single library is just one use-case. There are also use-cases where a single repository is compiled into many libraries; do you plan to support giving llvm-cov multiple library files (or multiple object files)?</span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Ultimately, in my case, I would like to see a single toplevel coverage report (preferably in html) and all of the detailed reports for each source file that includes the coverage from many binaries. </span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Thanks,</span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Phillip</span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div></div></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Ying Yi</span><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>SN Systems Ltd - Sony Computer Entertainment Group.</span><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"></span></font><br></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>