This question is related to googletest - command line option to execute "the first, the second, etc"
I want to be able to attribute given coverage results to each googletest test case.
QUESTION
In my C++ code, is it possible to reset the statistics?
Every time a test-case is done executing, I would save the accumulated gcov statistics and reset them.
From within your C++ code you could try it with __gcov_dump and __gcov_reset. They are mentioned in the GNU documentation although there is surprisingly limited info on them.
Below is a C++ program main.cpp that calls both.
1 #include <iostream>
2 #include <signal.h>
3
4 extern "C" void __gcov_dump(void);
5 extern "C" void __gcov_reset(void);
6
7
8 static void handler(int signum)
9 {
10 std::cout<<std::endl<<"Signal "<<signum<<" received!"<<std::endl;
11 __gcov_dump(); // Dump coverage upon interupt
12 std::cout<<"Coverage data dumped!"<<std::endl;
13 exit(0);
14 }
15
16
17 int main()
18 {
19 // Initialize signal handling
20 struct sigaction sa;
21
22 sa.sa_handler = handler;
23 sigemptyset(&sa.sa_mask);
24 sa.sa_flags = SA_RESTART;
25
26 if (sigaction(SIGINT, &sa, NULL) == -1)
27 std::cerr<<"ERROR: Could not register handler"<<std::endl;
28
29 // Main loop
30 while(true) {
31 int n;
32 std::cout<<"Type a number: ";
33 std::cin>>n;
34
35 if (n % 2 == 0) {
36 std::cout<<"Your number is even!"<<std::endl;
37 }
38 else {
39 std::cout<<"Your number is odd!"<<std::endl;
40 }
41 __gcov_reset(); // Reset coverage at the end of every iteration
42 }
43 }
If I compile it with g++ main.cpp --coverage -O0 and then run it as follows:
gomfy:gcov$ ./a.out
Type a number: 1
Your number is odd!
Type a number: 2
Your number is even!
Type a number: 3
Your number is odd!
Type a number: 4
Your number is even!
Type a number: ^C
Signal 2 received!
Coverage data dumped!
And then call gcovr in the build directory, I get:
gomfy:gcov$ gcovr
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCC Code Coverage Report
Directory: .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
File Lines Exec Cover Missing
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
main.cpp 18 6 33% 12-13,17,22-24,26-27,35-36,39,41
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 18 6 33%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This shows that the coverage has been successfully reset at the end of the while loop.
Related
This is an assignment and I have been asked to implement a Semaphore in Ada as the description below.
However I have implemented the Semaphore.adb and called this Semaphore in the producerconsumer_sem.adb which I created.
I get some output which is the following.
I'm not sure if my initialization of semaphore is correct S: CountingSemaphore(1,1);.
I don't know where I call the S.wait and S.Signal now i randomly called the S.wait before Producer put item in the buffer X := I; and the S.Signal after the X := I;.
Is this the correct way?
Producer-Consumer Problem
The program producerconsumer.adb implements a non-reliable implemen-
tation of the producer-consumer problem, where data is likely be lost. In
the following, you will use three different communication mechanisms to
achieve a reliable implementation of the producer-consumer problem.
Semaphore
The Ada language does not directly provide library functions for a semaphore.
However, semaphores can be implemented by means of a protected object. Create a package specification Semaphore in the file Semaphores.ads
and the corresponding package body in the file Semaphores.adb that
implements a counting semaphore. Skeletons for the package are available on the course page.
Use the semaphore package for a reliable implementation of the producer-
consumer problem. Modify the file producerconsumer.adb and save the
final code as producerconsumer_sem.adb. In order to use the semaphore
package it shall be installed in the same directory as producerconsumer_sem.adb.
It can then be accessed by
with Semaphores;
use Semaphores;
The Output:
OutPut:
1
1
1
2
2
3
4
4
5
6
6
7
7
8
9
9
9
10
11
11
11
12
12
13
13
13
14
15
15
16
16
17
18
18
18
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
24
24
24
24
25
25
26
27
27
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
33
34
35
35
35
36
36
37
37
37
38
38
38
39
40
40
40
The package
package Semaphores is
protected type CountingSemaphore(Max: Natural; Initial: Natural) is
entry Wait;
entry Signal;
private
Count : Natural := Initial;
MaxCount : Natural := Max;
end CountingSemaphore;
end Semaphores;
The Semaphore I implemented semaphores.adb.
package body Semaphores is
protected body CountingSemaphore is
entry Wait when Count > 0 is
begin
Count := Count - 1;
end Wait;
entry Signal when Count < MaxCount is
begin
Count := Count + 1;
end Signal;
end CountingSemaphore;
end Semaphores;
The producerconsumer_sem.adb
with Ada.Text_IO;
use Ada.Text_IO;
with Ada.Real_Time;
use Ada.Real_Time;
with Ada.Numerics.Discrete_Random;
with Semaphores;
use Semaphores;
procedure ProducerConsumer_sem is
X : Integer; -- Shared Variable
N : constant Integer := 40; -- Number of produced and comsumed variables
S: CountingSemaphore(1,1);
--S1: CountingSemaphore(1,1);
pragma Volatile(X); -- For a volatile object all reads and updates of
-- the object as a whole are performed directly
-- to memory (Ada Reference Manual, C.6)
--Random Delays
subtype Delay_Interval is Integer range 50..250;
package Random_Delay is new Ada.Numerics.Discrete_Random
(Delay_Interval);
use Random_Delay;
G : Generator;
task Producer;
task Consumer;
task body Producer is
Next : Time;
begin
Next := Clock;
for I in 1..N loop
-- Write to X
S.Wait;
X := I;
S.Signal;
--Next 'Release' in 50..250ms
Next := Next + Milliseconds(Random(G));
Put_Line(Integer'Image(X));
delay until Next;
end loop;
end;
task body Consumer is
Next : Time;
begin
Next := Clock;
for I in 1..N loop
-- Read from X
S.Wait;
Put_Line(Integer'Image(X));
S.Signal;
Next := Next + Milliseconds(Random(G));
delay until Next;
end loop;
end;
begin -- main task
null;
end ProducerConsumer_sem;
On macOS, with FSF GCC 7.1.0 and GNAT GPL 2017, I changed your Put_Lines to Puts and got pretty-much the answer you state in the question.
The question says to create Semaphore.ads, .adb. This will work on Windows, and may work on macOS, but won’t work on Linux, because of GNAT’s file naming convention (see the end of this; it’s a good idea to get into the habit of using lower-case file names).
If you want to ensure that only one task has access to X at a time, I don’t think there’s much wrong with your Wait, Signal calls, though when I put a delay 0.1 at the beginning of Producer, the first value output was 151619216 (because X isn’t initialized). However! if the point is to communicate one update to X at a time (as implied by the names producer/consumer), you should
initialize the semaphore with a count of 0 (and a max of 1). This makes it a binary semaphore.
in Consumer, Wait only (i.e. remove the Signal)
in Producer, Signal only (i.e. remove the Wait). Also, remove the Put to avoid confusion!
I created a simple model in Spin in which two processes S send messages to another process R. Process R then sends responses to both processes. I would like to define the property "if process x sends a message, then process y eventually receives it", as shown below. The problem is that although the simulation is working as expected, verification is not. The property I defined at line 9 is always passing without errors although I injected a fault at line 17 that should make verification fail. Am I missing something here?
1 byte r1PId;
2 byte s1PId;
3 byte s2PId;
4
5 byte nextM = 1;
6
7 chan toS[2] = [2] of {byte};
8
9 ltl p1 {[] ((s[s1PId]:m > 0) -> <>(s[s1PId]:m == r:m))}
10
11 proctype r(byte id; chan stoR)
12 {
13 do
14 :: true
15 byte c; byte m; byte m2;
16 stoR?c, m2;
17 m = 67; //should be m = m2
18
19 byte response = 50;
20
21 toS[c]!response;
22 od
23 }
24
25 proctype s(byte id; chan rtoS; chan stoR)
26 {
27 byte m;
28 atomic
29 {
30 m = nextM;
31 nextM = nextM+1;
32 }
33 stoR!id, m;
34 byte response;
35 rtoS?response;
36 }
37
38 init{
39 chan toR = [10] of {byte, byte};
40 r1PId = run r(10, toR);
41 s1PId = run s(0, toS[0], toR);
42 s2PId = run s(1, toS[1], toR);
43 }
There seems to be a scope problem. When the process s terminates, its local variables will be out of scope. In that case, the reference s[s1PId]:m will be 0.
On the other hand, in the process r, the variable m is declared inside a block. It is initialized to 0 every time before stoR?c, m2.
As a result, the reference r:m will always be 0 after receiving messages twice.
So, <>(s[s1PId]:m == r:m) will always be true.
To quick fix this, you can either (i) move the declaration byte m in r outside the loop; or (ii) add an infinite loop in s to prevent its termination.
I am trying to get used to iSpin/Promela. I am using:
Spin Version 6.4.3 -- 16 December 2014,
iSpin Version 1.1.4 -- 27 November 2014,
TclTk Version 8.6/8.6,
Windows 8.1.
Here is an example where I try to use LTL. The verification of the LTL property should produce an error if the two steps in the for loop are non-atomic:
1 #define ten ((n !=10) && (finished == 2))
2
3 int n = 0;
4 int finished = 0;
5 active [2] proctype P() {
6 //assert(_pid == 0 || _pid == 1);
7
8 int t = 0;
9 byte j;
10 for (j : 1 .. 5) {
11 atomic {
12 t = n;
13 n = t+1;
14 }
15 }
16 finished = finished+1;
17 }
18
19 ltl alwaysten {[] ! ten }
In the verification tap I just want to test the LTL property, so I disable all safety properties and activate "use claim". The claim name is "alwaysten".
But it seems that the LTL property is just evaluated if I activate "assertion violations". Why? A collegue is using iSpin v1.1.0 and he does not need to activate this? What am I doing wrong? I want to prove assertions and LTL properties independently...
Here is the trace:
pan: elapsed time 0.002 seconds
To replay the error-trail, goto Simulate/Replay and select "Run"
spin -a 1_2_ConcurrentCounters_8.pml
ltl alwaysten: [] (! (((n!=10)) && ((finished==2))))
C:/cygwin/bin/gcc -DMEMLIM=1024 -O2 -DXUSAFE -w -o pan pan.c
./pan -m10000 -E -a -N alwaysten
Pid: 6980
warning: only one claim defined, -N ignored
(Spin Version 6.4.3 -- 16 December 2014)
+ Partial Order Reduction
Full statespace search for:
never claim + (alwaysten)
assertion violations + (if within scope of claim)
acceptance cycles + (fairness disabled)
invalid end states - (disabled by -E flag)
State-vector 36 byte, depth reached 57, errors: 0
475 states, stored
162 states, matched
637 transitions (= stored+matched)
0 atomic steps
hash conflicts: 0 (resolved)
Stats on memory usage (in Megabytes):
0.024 equivalent memory usage for states (stored*(State-vector + overhead))
0.291 actual memory usage for states
64.000 memory used for hash table (-w24)
0.343 memory used for DFS stack (-m10000)
64.539 total actual memory usage
unreached in proctype P
(0 of 13 states)
unreached in claim alwaysten
_spin_nvr.tmp:8, state 10, "-end-"
(1 of 10 states)
pan: elapsed time 0.001 seconds
No errors found -- did you verify all claims?
This is because your LTL is translated into a claim with an assert statement. See the following automaton.
So, without checking for assertion violations, no error can be found.
(A possible explanation of different behaviors: previous versions of Spin might translate this differently, perhaps using accept instead of assert.)
I'm working on the development of the eclipse plugin based on CDT.
The plugin parses the C++ code and generates another C++ code based on the data from parsed code.
Suppose the original code is
enum SOMEENUM
{
ONE = 1 << 1 // Bit 2 2
,TWO = 1 << 2 // Bit 3 4
,THREE = 1 << 3 // Bit 4 8
,FOUR = 1 << 4 // Bit 5 16
}
CDT recognizes the 1 << 1, 1 << 2, etc as IASTBinaryExpression.
Question : Does anybody know how is it possible to evaluate the value of each binary expression by means of CDT ?
Otherwise the only option remain the calculation by manual parsing of all operands.
Every time I run my parser, it will appear "syntax error in line 1 near <>" (Because there is a subroutine yyerror(char *s)). I think that's because there is something wrong with my rules in bison.
The file (c17.isc) I want to parse.
*c17 iscas example (to test conversion program only)
*---------------------------------------------------
*
*
* total number of lines in the netlist .............. 17
* simplistically reduced equivalent fault set size = 22
* lines from primary input gates ....... 5
* lines from primary output gates ....... 2
* lines from interior gate outputs ...... 4
* lines from ** 3 ** fanout stems ... 6
*
* avg_fanin = 2.00, max_fanin = 2
* avg_fanout = 2.00, max_fanout = 2
*
*
*
*
*
1 1gat inpt 1 0 >sa1
2 2gat inpt 1 0 >sa1
3 3gat inpt 2 0 >sa0 >sa1
8 8fan from 3gat >sa1
9 9fan from 3gat >sa1
6 6gat inpt 1 0 >sa1
7 7gat inpt 1 0 >sa1
10 10gat nand 1 2 >sa1
1 8
11 11gat nand 2 2 >sa0 >sa1
9 6
14 14fan from 11gat >sa1
15 15fan from 11gat >sa1
16 16gat nand 2 2 >sa0 >sa1
2 14
20 20fan from 16gat >sa1
21 21fan from 16gat >sa1
19 19gat nand 1 2 >sa1
15 7
22 22gat nand 0 2 >sa0 >sa1
10 20
23 23gat nand 0 2 >sa0 >sa1
21 19
My flex file is as follows and it is right. You can find some information about how my scanner work here.
Error in the output of my flex file
declare.h
# include <stdio.h>
# include <string.h>
# include <stdlib.h>
# define INPT 1
# define NOR 2
# define NAND 3
# define NOT 4
# define XOR 5
# define AND 6
# define BUFF 7
# define FROM 8
flex file is
%{
# include "declare.h"
# include "parse.tab.h"
/*gi=1,it's input;gi=8,it's fanout;otherwise,it's gate*/
static int gi=-1;
static int inum=0;
struct{
char *symbol;
int val;
} symtab[]={
{"inpt", INPT},
{"nor", NOR},
{"nand", NAND},
{"not", NOT},
{"xor", XOR},
{"and", AND},
{"buff", BUFF},
{"from",FROM},
{"0",0}
};
extern FILE *yyin;
extern int yylval;
%}
%start A B C D E
DIGITS [0-9]+
BLANK [ \t\n\r\f\v\b]+
ALPHA [a-z]+
%%
"*".*\n {BEGIN A; return(COMMENT);}
<A>{DIGITS} {yylval=atoi(yytext); BEGIN B; return(NUM);}
<B>{DIGITS}{ALPHA} {yylval=atoi(yytext); BEGIN C; return(GNAME);}
<C>{DIGITS} {yylval=atoi(yytext); BEGIN D; return(OPNUM);}
<C>{DIGITS}{ALPHA} {yylval=atoi(yytext); BEGIN A; return(FR);}
<D>{DIGITS} {inum=atoi(yytext);
yylval=inum;
if(gi==1)
{BEGIN A;}
if(gi!=1)
{BEGIN E;}
return(IPNUM);
}
<E>{DIGITS} {inum--;
yylval=atoi(yytext);
if(inum<0)
{BEGIN B; return(NUM);}
else
{BEGIN E; return(ILIST);}
}
{ALPHA} {yylval=lookup(yytext);
return(GTYPE);
}
">sa"[0-1] {yylval=atoi(&yytext[yyleng-1]);return(FAULT);}
{BLANK} ;
. ;
%%
int lookup(const char *s)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; symtab[i].val != 0; i++)
{
if (strcmp(symtab[i].symbol, s) == 0)
break;
}
return(symtab[i].val);
}
The right rules in bison file are as follows
parto:
| parto COMMENT
| parto parti
;
parti: NUM
{...}
GNAME
{...}
GTYPE
{...}
| parti partii
| parti partiii
;
partii:OPNUM
{...}
IPNUM
{...}
partiv
partv
;
partiii: FR
{...}
partiv
;
partiv:
| partiv FAULT
{...}
;
partv:
| partv ILIST
{...}
;
Transferring the key comments into an answer.
The first edition of the code had a couple of problems. In the scanner code, there were lines like this:
<A>{DIGITS} { yylval=atoi(yytext); return(NUM); BEGIN B; }
You should be getting warnings about unreachable code from the BEGIN operations appearing after return. The BEGIN operations have to be executed. They aren't being executed, so you're not switching into your start states.
Michael commented:
There is no warning. I've modified it as you say and edit my codes in the question. Now I put return after BEGIN. Still, "syntax error in line 1 near <�>".
This probably means you aren't compiling the C code with enough warnings. Assuming you're using GCC, add -Wall to the compilation options for starters. There's a chance the warning requires optimization too.
Have you printed the tokens as they're returned (in the Flex scanner)? Have you compiled the Bison grammar with -DYYDEBUG? You also need to turn the debug on: yydebug = 1; in the main() program. You're probably not getting the tokens you expect when you expect them. I've not tried compiling this code yet. Tracking the tokens is key (in my experience) to getting grammars to work. Otherwise, you're running blind.
The other problem (closely related) is that you need to generate the symbolic names for FAULT etc from the grammar (bison -d grammar.y generates grammar.tab.h). You'll find that COMMENT is assigned the value 258, for example. Your scanner, though, is returning other numbers altogether because they're in declare.h. You'll have to fix this mismatch. One option is to #include "grammar.tab.h" in your scanner; this is more or less normal.
In retrospect, I think this is probably the most important observation; things seemed to revert to normal C debugging after this was resolved.
(People often include 'grammar.h' and only update 'grammar.h' if the content of 'grammar.tab.h' changes, so you don't recompile the scanner all the time).
The significance of this is that the set of tokens used by a grammar tends to be fairly stable while the actions associated with the rules change all the time as the implementation of the grammar evolves. So, if it takes enough time to be worth worrying about, you can create file grammar.h that is a copy of grammar.tab.h, but only update grammar.h when the content of grammar.tab.h changes.
cmp -s grammar.tab.h grammar.h || cp grammar.tab.h grammar.h
You'd include this in the makefile rule that converts that grammar into a C file (or an object file).
If the scanner is small enough and your machine fast enough, it may be simpler not to bother with this refinement; it mattered more in the days of 50 MHz machines with a few MiB of RAM than it does in these days of multiple cores running at 2+ GHz with a few GiB of RAM.