Re: [PATCH 0/4] Coverage support revisited

2013-05-14 Thread Thomas Rast
Jens Lehmann writes: > Am 13.05.2013 23:27, schrieb Thomas Rast: >> Jens asked me at git-merge if coverage support was still available. >> Turns out it is, but there were some weirdnesses. So this should fix >> them. It is relly slow as you still have to run the tests one by >> one; despite

Re: [PATCH 0/4] Coverage support revisited

2013-05-13 Thread Jens Lehmann
Am 13.05.2013 23:27, schrieb Thomas Rast: > Jens asked me at git-merge if coverage support was still available. > Turns out it is, but there were some weirdnesses. So this should fix > them. It is relly slow as you still have to run the tests one by > one; despite claims in the wild that it i

Re: [PATCH 0/4] Coverage support revisited

2013-05-13 Thread Junio C Hamano
Thomas Rast writes: > Below is the coverage-untested-functions output; it seems submodule.c > is covered, so there is nothing for Jens to do ;-) Nice. Here are some hints to add coverages to the selected functions. > alloc.c: report > alloc.c: alloc_report I believe these are only for debuggi

[PATCH 0/4] Coverage support revisited

2013-05-13 Thread Thomas Rast
Jens asked me at git-merge if coverage support was still available. Turns out it is, but there were some weirdnesses. So this should fix them. It is relly slow as you still have to run the tests one by one; despite claims in the wild that it is multiprocess- safe but thread-unsafe, I am in fa