From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: PEG Parser Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:55:26 +0100 Message-ID: <87oc76rphd.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87bp3fi5cp.fsf@gnu.org> <87aaisr6sn.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1295902549 15737 80.91.229.12 (24 Jan 2011 20:55:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 20:55:49 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 24 21:55:43 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PhTRv-0003wb-3K for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:55:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41547 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PhTRu-0000XK-NN for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:55:42 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=47960 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PhTRs-0000WD-9Y for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:55:41 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PhTRr-0004JV-2N for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:55:40 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:33177) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PhTRq-0004JC-SG for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:55:39 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PhTRp-0003u3-MZ for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:55:37 +0100 Original-Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.83]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:55:37 +0100 Original-Received: from ludo by reverse-83.fdn.fr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:55:37 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 24 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: reverse-83.fdn.fr X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 5 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pluvi=F4se?= an 219 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 83C4 F8E5 10A3 3B4C 5BEA D15D 77DD 95E2 EA52 ECF4 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:w2WROcTPxtqmdD2fdHypOABJUF4= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:11332 Archived-At: Hi, Noah Lavine writes: >> It should have produced $top_builddir/guile.info, which can be used as >> input to LCOV to generate an HTML code coverage report >> (http://ltp.sourceforge.net/coverage/lcov.php). > > Oh, that worked. The current tests check 92.6% of the lines in > peg.scm, and 90.7% of the functions. I looked through lcov's HTML > guide, and it looks like what the tests miss is almost all > error-handling code. However, I must say that the HTML output looked a > bit suspicious - for instance, there were places where the first line > of a function was marked as hit, but the second line was not. Often, if a function is defined but unused, the ‘define’ line will be marked as hit whereas the rest of the function will remain red–but that’s OK since strictly speaking the ‘define’ line /is/ executed. However, it could be that the code coverage code is buggy. If you find obvious errors and can reduce them, I’d be happy to look into it. Thanks, Ludo’.