Sorry for the late reply.
On Mar 26, 2009, at 7:59 AM, Tej wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Tej <bewith.tej@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Gianluca Guida
While I still need to test the patch (building 3.3 right now) and to
understand gcov internals, I think that a few comments can be
- xen coding style: Using four-spaces tabs is generally the
I do prefer to have brackets that start code blocks on a new line
the previous line, but that's not followed everywhere in the code.
- Makefiles: while the num=$*.c is still a mystery to me, my
question is: do
you really need to make links with different names to files compiled
multiple times? If so, it would be useful to remove them on 'make
Also, it would be useful to make this feature enabled with a
Attached patches address the four-spaces tabs and make clean issues.
Hope the code is more clean and readable
Sorry for interrupting you guys from your busy schedule, as i just
want to know the current status for GCOV patches i submitted early
any feedback on "testing/coding/design/feature" will be appreciated.
I've been testing it for a while, and it seems an useful and
A few comments, though:
- As I said, while the patch is minimal enough, the feature requires
some intrusive changes in Xen, like changing the linker script (via
the definition of CONSTRUCTORS) and in general it changes the compiler
behavior, so I think it should be mandatory to make this feature
explicitely enabled at compile time, e.g. gcov=y.
- I am talking about Xen code only, but I think a few part of the
codes should be more clear. I find very confusing the difference
between xen_gcov_info and gcov_info, and all the instructions that
uses them. A better naming scheme for the variables and more comments
would be appreciated.
Xen-devel mailing list