Thanks all for replies.
I solved the problem simly exluding classes generated by jibx from emma
instr path :)
Nigel Charman wrote:
This could be an issue with Emma. The bytecode generated by JiBX has
the synthetic attribute set to indicate that it does not appear in the
source code.
I suspect the problem EMMA is having is in the bytecode added by JiBX.
Since there's no source code corresponding to this bytecode there's also
no debug information.
The best thing I can suggest is that you run EMMA first, for offline
instrumentation, and then the JiBX binding compiler after
This could be an issue with Emma. The bytecode generated by JiBX has
the synthetic attribute set to indicate that it does not appear in the
source code. This was added about a year ago, so ensure you are using a
recent version of JiBX.
The Emma FAQ does state that it excludes synthetic
We are using EMMA for code coverage reports. For EMMA to do it's magic it
requires the classes to be compiled with full debug info (running javac with
the -g option; running from ant with debug=true).
For classes that are involved in JiBX binding emma is complaining that the
debug info is
