s there a better/preferred way to do it?
>
>
> *Von:* Wireshark-dev *Im Auftrag
> von *Peimann, Jannis
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 27. Juli 2020 13:07
> *An:* wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
> *Betreff:* [Wireshark-dev] Code Coverage Measurement of Wireshark -
> Outdated Ins
l -o lcov-output/ coverage.lcov
> or with source error ignoration:
> genhtml –ignore-errors source -o lcov-output/ coverage.lcov
>
>
> Maybe this helps someone else.
>
> Is this a good way, or is there a better/preferred way to do it?
>
>
> Von: Wireshark-dev Im
ource -o lcov-output/ coverage.lcov
Maybe this helps someone else.
Is this a good way, or is there a better/preferred way to do it?
Von: Wireshark-dev Im Auftrag von
Peimann, Jannis
Gesendet: Montag, 27. Juli 2020 13:07
An: wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
Betreff: [Wireshark-dev] Code Coverage Meas
Hello together,
I created a small Dissector that I want to test now.
Therefore I tried the Code Coverage Measurement from the Wireshark Wiki Page
but ran into some issues.
At first I have seen, that this page was updated the last time in 2008.
(wiki.wireshark.org/Development/CodeCoverage)
