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
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
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 whi
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 re
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:
>
> http://keeda.stanford.edu/~cri
