Re: testing

On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 01:00:20AM -0500, al davis wrote:
> On Friday 30 January 2015, Felix Salfelder wrote:
> > about coverage... you might find gcov/lcov useful. it does
> > not require code manipulation or manual bookkeeping and the
> > results are much more detailed. roughly, (from my notes, not
> > recently tested) the following once created a bunch of
> > interesting .html files for me.
> 
> The statistics generated is much more detailed, but that's not 
> the goal.  The goal is to guide the human to make better code, 
> and to keep track of how it is going.

disagreed. if you use gcov to compute the percentage of visited
branches, the result will be the percentage of visited branches.
i have not considered that, as i use "untested()" myself...
it's just that the "untested()" fuzz all over the code is mostly
confusing to anybody else. it introduces unnecessary coding rules, and
thus is a waste of time.

> Lots of tools lose sight of the real needs.  Then we become 
> slaves to the tools.

i did not say that more coverage analysis is needed. and probably its
really not.

cheers
felix