Gcov 报告普通函数调用的分支
Gcov reports branches for plain function calls
我正在使用 gcov 来获取我们项目的代码覆盖率,但它经常报告普通函数调用的条件覆盖率为 50%。函数是否接受任何参数或 returns 任何数据都没有任何区别。我将 gcovr 和 Cobertura 与 Jenkins 一起使用,但一个简单的 gcov 文件给出了相同的结果。
实际测试的代码连同存根函数一起附在下面,全部采用 gcov 格式。
知道为什么 gcov 会威胁这些函数调用作为分支吗?
-: 146:/*****************************************************************************/
function _Z12mw_log_clearv called 2 returned 100% blocks executed 100%
2: 147:void mw_log_clear( void )
2: 147-block 0
-: 148:{
2: 149: uint8_t i = 0;
2: 150: uint8_t clear_tuple[EE_PAGE_SIZE] = { 0xff };
-: 151:
66: 152: for (i = 0; i < (int16_t)EE_PAGE_SIZE; i++)
2: 152-block 0
64: 152-block 1
66: 152-block 2
branch 0 taken 97%
branch 1 taken 3% (fallthrough)
-: 153: {
64: 154: clear_tuple[i] = 0xff;
-: 155: }
-: 156:
-: 157: /* Write pending data */
2: 158: mw_eeprom_write_blocking();
2: 158-block 0
call 0 returned 100%
branch 1 taken 100% (fallthrough) <---- This is a plain function call, not a branch
branch 2 taken 0% (throw) <---- This is a plain function call, not a branch
-: 159:
26: 160: for (i = 0; i < (RESERVED_PAGES_PER_PAREMETER_SET - POPULATED_PAGES_PER_PAREMETER_SET); i++)
2: 160-block 0
24: 160-block 1
26: 160-block 2
branch 0 taken 96%
branch 1 taken 4% (fallthrough)
-: 161: {
25: 162: if (status_ok != mw_eeprom_write(LOG_TUPLE_START_ADDRESS + i * EE_PAGE_SIZE, clear_tuple, sizeof(clear_tuple)))
25: 162-block 0
call 0 returned 100%
branch 1 taken 100% (fallthrough) <---- This is a plain function call, not a branch
branch 2 taken 0% (throw) <---- This is a plain function call, not a branch
25: 162-block 1
branch 3 taken 4% (fallthrough)
branch 4 taken 96%
-: 163: {
1: 164: mw_error_handler_add(mw_error_eeprom_busy);
1: 164-block 0
call 0 returned 100%
branch 1 taken 100% (fallthrough) <---- This is a plain function call, not a branch
branch 2 taken 0% (throw) <---- This is a plain function call, not a branch
1: 165: break;
1: 165-block 0
-: 166: }
-: 167:
24: 168: mw_eeprom_write_blocking();
24: 168-block 0
call 0 returned 100%
branch 1 taken 100% (fallthrough) <---- This is a plain function call, not a branch
branch 2 taken 0% (throw) <---- This is a plain function call, not a branch
-: 169: }
2: 170:}
2: 170-block 0
-: 171:
-: 172:/*****************************************************************************/
/******************************************** *********************************/
void mw_eeprom_write_blocking(void)
{
stub_data.eeprom_write_blocking_calls++;
}
/******************************************** *********************************/
void mw_error_handler_add(mw_error_code_t error_code)
{
EXPECT_EQ(error_code, stub_data.expected_error_code);
stub_data.registered_error_code = error_code;
}
/******************************************** *********************************/
status_t mw_eeprom_write(
const uint32_t eeprom_start_index,
void *const source_start_address,
const uint32_t length)
{
stub_data.eeprom_write_start_index = eeprom_start_index;
stub_data.eeprom_write_length = length;
stub_data.eeprom_write_called = true;
EXPECT_NE(NULL, (uint32_t)source_start_address);
EXPECT_NE(0, length);
EXPECT_LE(eeprom_start_index + length, EEPROM_SIZE);
if (status_ok == stub_data.eeprom_write_status)
memcpy(&stub_data.eeprom[eeprom_start_index], source_start_address, length);
return stub_data.eeprom_write_status;
}
已解决!
在此线程中找到答案:
Why gcc 4.1 + gcov reports 100% branch coverage and newer (4.4, 4.6, 4.8) reports 50% for "p = new class;" line?
似乎 gcov 对这些函数调用的某些 "invisible" 异常处理代码做出了反应,因此向 g++ 添加“-fno-exceptions”使所有这些缺失的分支都消失了。
我正在使用 gcov 来获取我们项目的代码覆盖率,但它经常报告普通函数调用的条件覆盖率为 50%。函数是否接受任何参数或 returns 任何数据都没有任何区别。我将 gcovr 和 Cobertura 与 Jenkins 一起使用,但一个简单的 gcov 文件给出了相同的结果。 实际测试的代码连同存根函数一起附在下面,全部采用 gcov 格式。 知道为什么 gcov 会威胁这些函数调用作为分支吗?
-: 146:/*****************************************************************************/
function _Z12mw_log_clearv called 2 returned 100% blocks executed 100%
2: 147:void mw_log_clear( void )
2: 147-block 0
-: 148:{
2: 149: uint8_t i = 0;
2: 150: uint8_t clear_tuple[EE_PAGE_SIZE] = { 0xff };
-: 151:
66: 152: for (i = 0; i < (int16_t)EE_PAGE_SIZE; i++)
2: 152-block 0
64: 152-block 1
66: 152-block 2
branch 0 taken 97%
branch 1 taken 3% (fallthrough)
-: 153: {
64: 154: clear_tuple[i] = 0xff;
-: 155: }
-: 156:
-: 157: /* Write pending data */
2: 158: mw_eeprom_write_blocking();
2: 158-block 0
call 0 returned 100%
branch 1 taken 100% (fallthrough) <---- This is a plain function call, not a branch
branch 2 taken 0% (throw) <---- This is a plain function call, not a branch
-: 159:
26: 160: for (i = 0; i < (RESERVED_PAGES_PER_PAREMETER_SET - POPULATED_PAGES_PER_PAREMETER_SET); i++)
2: 160-block 0
24: 160-block 1
26: 160-block 2
branch 0 taken 96%
branch 1 taken 4% (fallthrough)
-: 161: {
25: 162: if (status_ok != mw_eeprom_write(LOG_TUPLE_START_ADDRESS + i * EE_PAGE_SIZE, clear_tuple, sizeof(clear_tuple)))
25: 162-block 0
call 0 returned 100%
branch 1 taken 100% (fallthrough) <---- This is a plain function call, not a branch
branch 2 taken 0% (throw) <---- This is a plain function call, not a branch
25: 162-block 1
branch 3 taken 4% (fallthrough)
branch 4 taken 96%
-: 163: {
1: 164: mw_error_handler_add(mw_error_eeprom_busy);
1: 164-block 0
call 0 returned 100%
branch 1 taken 100% (fallthrough) <---- This is a plain function call, not a branch
branch 2 taken 0% (throw) <---- This is a plain function call, not a branch
1: 165: break;
1: 165-block 0
-: 166: }
-: 167:
24: 168: mw_eeprom_write_blocking();
24: 168-block 0
call 0 returned 100%
branch 1 taken 100% (fallthrough) <---- This is a plain function call, not a branch
branch 2 taken 0% (throw) <---- This is a plain function call, not a branch
-: 169: }
2: 170:}
2: 170-block 0
-: 171:
-: 172:/*****************************************************************************/
/******************************************** *********************************/
void mw_eeprom_write_blocking(void)
{
stub_data.eeprom_write_blocking_calls++;
}
/******************************************** *********************************/
void mw_error_handler_add(mw_error_code_t error_code)
{
EXPECT_EQ(error_code, stub_data.expected_error_code);
stub_data.registered_error_code = error_code;
}
/******************************************** *********************************/
status_t mw_eeprom_write(
const uint32_t eeprom_start_index,
void *const source_start_address,
const uint32_t length)
{
stub_data.eeprom_write_start_index = eeprom_start_index;
stub_data.eeprom_write_length = length;
stub_data.eeprom_write_called = true;
EXPECT_NE(NULL, (uint32_t)source_start_address);
EXPECT_NE(0, length);
EXPECT_LE(eeprom_start_index + length, EEPROM_SIZE);
if (status_ok == stub_data.eeprom_write_status)
memcpy(&stub_data.eeprom[eeprom_start_index], source_start_address, length);
return stub_data.eeprom_write_status;
}
已解决!
在此线程中找到答案: Why gcc 4.1 + gcov reports 100% branch coverage and newer (4.4, 4.6, 4.8) reports 50% for "p = new class;" line?
似乎 gcov 对这些函数调用的某些 "invisible" 异常处理代码做出了反应,因此向 g++ 添加“-fno-exceptions”使所有这些缺失的分支都消失了。