On 1/20/2015 4:37 AM, Nicolas B. Pierron wrote:
This "general design" is a pragmatic approach to help people implement
different variant of taint-analysis without having to implement taint
analysis in SpiderMonkey. Identically for code-coverage, how much
time do you want to spend at doing code-coverage vs. running code?
This is part of the implementation design of the analysis.
Seeing that the code coverage runs on try already risk timing out (in
--coverage -g -Owhateverweuse builds), the instrumentation costs need to
be pretty low. Post-processing is already necessary to capture scripts
never run, so as long as stuff is output in a recoverable manner, that's
sufficient.
Is there any prospect for this sort of stuff getting done this year?
AFAIK, no.
Maybe some potential users will show up and mention that they are
willing to get their hand dirty if we were to implement an Analysis
API as discussed back in June. In which case we might be able to
raise again the question about scheduling this work.
That's a real shame. I've been without JS code coverage since 2012 or
2013 when the PC counts was removed, and it's disappointing that Mozilla
is encouraging browser development in JS but failing to provide
effective tooling to support that development.
--
Joshua Cranmer
Thunderbird and DXR developer
Source code archæologist
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
