On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> [...]
>> Additionally, one thing that I'd really love to see -- though I don't
>> at all know whether lcov can do this as it stands -- is a semantic
>> diff between two coverage out
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Nick Mathewson wrote:
[...]
> Additionally, one thing that I'd really love to see -- though I don't
> at all know whether lcov can do this as it stands -- is a semantic
> diff between two coverage outputs. When writing new unit tests at
> random, or when checkin
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 8:00 AM, David Murray wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi all,
>
> Would there be interest in using lcov [0] for test coverage analysis?
>
> Obviously, as lcov is an external pacakge, the existing scripts that
> only use built in gcov commands mu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
Would there be interest in using lcov [0] for test coverage analysis?
Obviously, as lcov is an external pacakge, the existing scripts that
only use built in gcov commands must remain.
However, if I were to create a script that generates a pr
