On Tuesday 11 March 2008 07:19, Brad Hards wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 March 2008 08:02:01 am Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Brad Hards wrote:
> > > It appears to be working for me, although some of the output looks a
> > > bit strange:
> > > 5: 12:void TestQEmf::check()
> > > -: 13:{
> > > 9: 14: QVERIFY( true );
> > > 2: 15: QWinMetaFile wmf;
> > > 5: 16: QImage pic(1000, 800,
> > > QImage::Format_ARGB32_Premultiplied); 20: 17: QVERIFY( wmf.load(
> > > "1.emf" ) );
> > > -: 18:
> > > 14: 19: wmf.paint( &pic );
> > > 4: 20:}
> > >
> > > I'm not too worried - all I really care about is executed-or-not, but
> > > it does make the output look unreliable.
> >
> > Why is it strange? I've seen cases where compiler optimisations make
> > lines that you think should be executable become non-executable, but this
> > doesn't seem to be one of them. Well, whether the function name line and
> > the '{' and '}' lines are executable depends on what the compiler does.
>
> I assumed that it was "number of times this line gets executed", rather
> than "number of times a code block from this line gets executed", so all
> the lines (in the absence of a conditional statement or loop) should have
> the same number.
At a guess and knowing nothing about how VCov works, I'd say it's the
number of executed instructions for each line. (Unless it's not :-)
J
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Valgrind-developers mailing list
Valgrind-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-developers
