On 01/12/2010 03:44 AM, Philip Withnall wrote: > On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 03:38 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: >> On 01/04/2010 12:53 PM, Javier Jardón wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> The objective of the GnomeGoal is to add code coverage of your code >>> with GCOV [1] >>> You can take a look to the GnomeGoal page here: [2] (There are also >>> examples to add GCOV support to json-glib and libgdata) >> >> I was a huge fan of adding GCOV support to all modules, and actually have >> patches for glib/pango/gtk+ in bugzilla. But after finding out that coverage >> can be extracted without modifying the modules (like build.gnome.org is >> already doing), I'm against cluttering the modules with GCOV boilerplate. > > Having the gcov stuff in-tree means that you can test the coverage of > new code as you write it, so you could theoretically always have 100% > coverage of the code which is committed.
We've had that code in cairo for years. But getting coverage is so slow that I doubt people use it regularly. > Similarly, build.gnome.org only tests the versions of modules in the > current jhbuild moduleset, not the latest git versions. > > It's not much boilerplate code anyway, so I thought it was useful for > libgdata. To each their own. :-) Certainly disagree with the "not much boilerplate code anyway". Looks like a 100 lines of copy/pasted code to me. That's where all the cruft comes from... behdad > Philip > >> behdad _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
