On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 01:00:20AM -0500, al davis wrote: > On Friday 30 January 2015, Felix Salfelder wrote: > > about coverage... you might find gcov/lcov useful. it does > > not require code manipulation or manual bookkeeping and the > > results are much more detailed. roughly, (from my notes, not > > recently tested) the following once created a bunch of > > interesting .html files for me. > > The statistics generated is much more detailed, but that's not > the goal. The goal is to guide the human to make better code, > and to keep track of how it is going.
disagreed. if you use gcov to compute the percentage of visited branches, the result will be the percentage of visited branches. i have not considered that, as i use "untested()" myself... it's just that the "untested()" fuzz all over the code is mostly confusing to anybody else. it introduces unnecessary coding rules, and thus is a waste of time. > Lots of tools lose sight of the real needs. Then we become > slaves to the tools. i did not say that more coverage analysis is needed. and probably its really not. cheers felix _______________________________________________ Gnucap-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucap-devel
