On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Gianluca Guida
<gianluca.guida@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Feb 19, 2009, at 3:53 PM, George Dunlap wrote:
>
>> So I think that it probably would be useful. Unfortunately, I don't
>> have time in the near future to look at either of these (new "xcov"
>> functionality, or fixing xenoprofile). Gianluca's been doing some
>> interesting work with testing. I'll ask him if he's interested in
>> looking at it.
>
> Definitely. Getting code coverage reports, whatever the tools, may help a
> lot when trying to debug a bizarre memory corruption or even just to check
> that a test you're writing does what you actually want.
>
> Keep me in the loop and feel free to ask questions, I'll start reading
> patches and experimenting with it. IMHO, I think that 64bit hypervisor
> support will be by far more useful, since it's the most used version of the
> hypervisor, nowadays.
Sending Patches for the 64 bit Hypervisor, We have tested patches on
AMD-64 (Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4600+) machine with
gcc-4.2 & gcc-3.4. Please refer the previous GCOV RFC in same mail for
more info on Hypervisor profiling.
We have added support to 32bit and 64bit Kernel.
In addition to patches for hypervisor profiling, we did a little work
on *lcov* to work with hypervisor.
README could be useful, for naive lcov user. locv-diff.patch show our
change in lcov scripts.
any comments, feedback and suggestion are more than welcome
P.S. a lcov screenshot with hypervisor profling has been attached.
thanks
-tej & team
>
> Thanks,
> Gianluca
>
>
xen-3.3-gcov-v2.patch
Description: Binary data
linux-2.6.18-gcov-v2.patch
Description: Binary data
lcov
Description: Binary data
lcov-diff.patch
Description: Binary data
README
Description: Binary data
lcov-screenshot
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|