On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 08:53:04 -0400, David Cole said: >The answer to that stackoverflow question recommends using >clang/clang++ instead. (I have not tried this yet myself, but would >not be entirely surprised to find out it's correct. I have observed >the zero coverage phenomenon on my own Mac laptop, but have sufficient >coverage capabilities elsewhere... so I didn't care enough to follow >up on it previously.)
The state of code coverage with Mac OS tools is not great. The gcc and llvm-gcc that Apple ship don't support coverage. clang didn't support it for a long time, but now does, but there are still a number of bugs, notably this one: <http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=11457> -- ____________________________________________________________ Sean McBride, B. Eng s...@rogue-research.com Rogue Research www.rogue-research.com Mac Software Developer Montréal, Québec, Canada -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
