On 05/09/2011 01:20 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > I have to agree with roland, that this doesn't really test that much, > except if you can flip the bits.
Yep, that is true, I've already thrown it away. I just didn't know how else/better can this be tested. > How are you measuring coverage? Using the lcov. Here's what I do: $ ./configure --enable-gcov $ make -j4 check $ lcov --directory . --capture --output-file blah.info $ genhtml blah.info $ firefox index.html Here's how the result looks like (current git): http://people.redhat.com/mpolacek/tmp/eu-lcov/ Which reminds me, do you (or anyone) please have a suggestion what should I test next? libebl isn't stable, libelf is quite well-covered, and in libdw the most important functions are also covered already. Maybe the libdwfl could use some additional test, for instance core_file.c or link_map.c. But I'm not sure if it is even worth it. Is it? > Shouldn't these functions be exercised by some the the unstrip tests? I don't know. elf_flag{data,ehdr,elf,phdr} are used in update{2,3,4}.c, but the coverage is only ~40%. Well, it is probably fine as it is. Marek _______________________________________________ elfutils-devel mailing list [email protected] https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/elfutils-devel
