On 6/18/07, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Joshua ben Jore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-06-18 02:10]:
> Probably but I'd ask Avar or Yves about that and I'm sure the
> method would be entirely different. The 5.10 engine is
> pluggable so I'm sure it's wrappable and therefore traceable.
Cool. Because that's a subject that the existing coverage tools
don't deal very well with – just because I used a regex once
doesn't mean I actually have any significant coverage of the
"code paths" in that regex. Yet all the tools operate on this
assumption so far.
Its come up in discussion on p5p in the past. The basic idea would be
to count regops and then note which regops were not touched by
executing the pattern. It becomes a lot trickier when you consider the
TRIE regop, so i guess the thing to do would be under coverage you
would disable that optimisation. But the issue applies to any sort of
"dfa"isation of the engine, which potentially makes the problem very
hard indeed.
cheers,
Yves
--
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
