Add adapted lcov.sh to the framework

[bjwtaylor]

Description

Add adapted lcov.sh to the framework. I've uploaded the rudimentary test script that I used to validate the change here https://github.com/bjwtaylor/mbedtls/blob/lcov-test/scripts/test.sh. It doesn't inspect the report, however it validates it has been created not sure if this is useful in this PR? Let me know what people think? contributes #93

This PR is part of a multistage PR, however the code changes involved appear to not effect the CI so it can be merged in any order. However it is suggested it is merged in the following order.

1. Add adapted lcov.sh to the framework #224
2. Update lcov.sh paths in make files TF-PSA-Crypto#536
3. Move lcov 3.6 mbedtls#10452
4. Remove lcov.sh as this will be moved to the framework mbedtls#10450

PR checklist

• TF-PSA-Crypto PR not required because: No changes
• development PR provided Remove lcov.sh as this will be moved to the framework mbedtls#10450
• 3.6 PR provided Move lcov 3.6 mbedtls#10452

[valeriosetti]

What I suggest when moving files for the next time:

• 1 commit to move the files
• 1 or more commit to change the files

In this way it's easier to tell what was done do adapt the script to work with mbedtls 4.0/3.6 and tf-psa-crypto. I can still do it locally of course, but it's less immediate.

[valeriosetti]

I've uploaded the rudimentary test script that I used to validate the change here https://github.com/bjwtaylor/mbedtls/blob/lcov-test/scripts/test.sh.

This is just my curiosity, not a problem for this PR: does it make any difference in terms of coverage if we're building in-tree or out-of-tree?

[bjwtaylor]

I've uploaded the rudimentary test script that I used to validate the change here https://github.com/bjwtaylor/mbedtls/blob/lcov-test/scripts/test.sh.

This is just my curiosity, not a problem for this PR: does it make any difference in terms of coverage if we're building in-tree or out-of-tree?

So, it shouldn't do. The coverage is based on the tests you run, so if you are running the same tests you should get the same result. It would be an interesting test to do though.

[mpg]

LGTM, thanks!

[mpg]

Minor: not a big fan of the commit structure here. In the future, please start with an identical copy, and make changes as a separate commit. This makes it much easier to see what changed.

As a general rule, moves (of files, functions, or large chunks of code), as well a large whitespace changes (re-indent / fix code style), should be separated as much as possible from actual changes. This makes it much easier to review what's going on.

(No need to rewrite history here at this point, but please keep in mind for the future.)