Daniel Dunbar wrote:
Here is the process I use for generating those results. First, generate the
coverage information:
Thanks, that worked like a charm!
I've attached a patch that puts your instructions into the HACKING file.
I used a `.lcov' extension for the lcov output files instead of
Bo Borgerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel Dunbar wrote:
Here is the process I use for generating those results. First, generate the
coverage information:
Thanks, that worked like a charm!
I've attached a patch that puts your instructions into the HACKING file.
Thanks! Applied.
I used
If you're reading this list, you probably noticed that some kind
souls at Stanford uncovered a surprising number of bugs in coreutils
recently. Part of their analysis was coverage-related, and they
produced these coverage reports:
http://keeda.stanford.edu/~cristic/coreutils-dev-tests/src/
Jim Meyering wrote:
If you're reading this list, you probably noticed that some kind
souls at Stanford uncovered a surprising number of bugs in coreutils
recently. Part of their analysis was coverage-related, and they
produced these coverage reports:
Bo Borgerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Meyering wrote:
If you're reading this list, you probably noticed that some kind
souls at Stanford uncovered a surprising number of bugs in coreutils
recently. Part of their analysis was coverage-related, and they
produced these coverage reports:
Hi,
How cool!
That's a really useful tool. I wonder if it might be possible to
include some instructions for producing a coverage report like that in
the project somewhere... maybe in the HACKING file?
It is fairly straightforward, although lcov has some quirks resolving path
names which I
