Changes between Version 87 and Version 88 of TBR/UserManual/RTEMS_Coverage_Analysis

Timestamp:

06/04/10 19:24:36 (14 years ago)

Author:

JoelSherrill

Comment:

/* Current Status */ Add initial write up on status.

TBR/UserManual/RTEMS_Coverage_Analysis

@@ -165 +165 @@
 
 The [wiki:Developer/Coverage/Status Code Coverage Status] section lists the RTEMS BSPs on which we are performing (or would like to perform) Object Code Coverage.  We would like to continue to grow this list.  If you know of a simulator that includes coverage analysis, please let us know.
+
+With the instruction level coverage of core of RTEMS (e.g. score, rtems, posix, and sapi directories) near 100%, we have expanded our attention to to include other non-networking portions of the cpukit.  The following areas have been identified as good candidates for writing tests which improve the current coverage.  
+
+ *  FIFO/Pipe
+ *  Untar
+ *  TBD
+
+If you are interested in writing some simple parameter check error cases, then take a look at the branch taken/not taken coverage reports for the "core configuration". Some of these are a simple matter of adding missing test cases for bad parameter path.  Other cases are more difficult.  So if you run into trouble with the analysis, ask or skip it. A common pattern is this:
+
+{{{
+if (arg1 bad)
+  return EINVAL;
+if (arg2 bad)
+  return EINVAL;
+}}}
+
+GCC is smart enough to optimize the returns into one block of code.  Thus we could have a test for arg1 or arg2 bad and obtain 100% instruction coverage.  But would not get 100% branch coverage.
 = References =