[llvm-dev] llvm-cov accepting many binary files for aggregated coverage reports

[Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev]

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?

thanks,

David

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:46 AM, p23 power <p23power at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> 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?
>
>
> *> I don't see why a wrapper script (that passes object file
> to llvm-cov one by one) won't work well*
>
> 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 toplevel
> html index page for a code-repository that is tested across multiple
> binaries.
>
> *> If *many binaries share some library code, it can be confusing to show
> the aggregated coverage data of the library as if they are valid for any
> individual binary.
>
> 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, where they are
> looking for an aggregated coverage report.
>
> *> It seems to me that a per-library coverage report is more appropriate
> here.*
>
> 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)?
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks,
> Phillip
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160307/91f05693/attachment-0001.html>