Fredrik Johansson wrote:
Nathan, if done properly do you think a patch (that again makes it
possible to extract the number of source lines in a untested lines)
would be accepted? And which way would be the most sutable: to make it
the standard behaviour to assume zero counts if no .gcda file are
Nathan, if done properly do you think a patch (that again makes it
possible to extract the number of source lines in a untested lines)
would be accepted? And which way would be the most sutable: to make it
the standard behaviour to assume zero counts if no .gcda file are
found or to enable that fe
Ok. The reason that I need to know how many lines of source code their
is in the untested files is that I want to calculate a avarage for
test coverage on "modules" in my source code tree. And untested
"module files" contribute to that avarage as well, of course.
That I need it to work in a simil
Fredrik Johansson wrote:
Why I ask is because I need to extract the number of lines even in
untested files, and I need it to work both on 3.3.6 and on various
3.4.x versions.
This use case had not occurred to me.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell:: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeS
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:44:56AM +0200, Fredrik Johansson wrote:
> [ gcov on a source file with no .da/.gcda file ]
> The 3.3.6 version assumes that the file not has been run (which is the
> correct behaviour in my book) whereas the 3.4.4 version just "gives
> up". I know that a large remake was
Hi!
I posted a similiar thread a couple of weeks ago, but now I'm back
with some more on my feet and hopefully a more clear problem
description. Ok, so I have a sample application that just cout's a
line of text. If I compile it with GCC 3.3.6 and run the 3.3.6 gcov on
the source file I get this:
