https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14855
Iain Buclaw <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #6 from Iain Buclaw <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Jonathan M Davis from comment #5) > > Maybe we can add a compiler flag or API in Druntime to change the behavior > > based on a user's opinion? > > Much as I would love to see assert(0) not counted towards the coverage, I > think that we should avoid extra compiler flags for stuff like this, and > Walter is generally opposed to adding compiler flags without a really good > reason, so I'd be pretty shocked if he'd agree to one for this. If he were > convinced that it mattered enough to consider it, he'd just agree to change > the normal behavior. > > At this point, expect that the options are: > > 1. Just put up with how things are and fail to get 100% code coverage in a > number of cases because of this issue. > I'd say just put up with it. Code that we *know* is unreachable can only be considered good if it's never hit. :-) There are always ways to refactor code so that you get 100% hit without compromising code correctness. Such as using enforce + final switch. > 3. Use a different code coverage tool. I don't know how possible that would > be with dmd, but it should work with gdc or ldc. > Different coverage tools would still have the same outcome though. --
