[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Test code coverage

From: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 19:49:54 +0000 (GMT)

Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote:
>> Hyrum K Wright wrote:
>>> Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
>>>> I was wondering whether we could have one or two of
>>>> our UNIX build bots create a code coverage profile
>>>> and make the results available online.
>> I attach an updated patch.  It uses 'lcov' instead of 'gcov'
>> as Stefan suggests, which makes the Makefile target much
>> simpler; and I modeled the 'configure' handling on the
>> existing --enable-gprof switch.
> Looks good.

>> The existing --enable-gprof option requires --disable-shared
>> and recommends --enable-all-static, and I have just copied that
>> without understanding why or whether the same applies to gcov.
> Given the bindings problem you ran into with an all-static build,
> I wonder whether it should rather be the other way around.

I have left it as it is, since

configure --enable-gcov --disable-shared --without-gnome-keyring

works for me if I avoid swig-py and swig rb bindings.

(With --enable-all-static Subversion doesn't build for me, but judging by the error messages that's probably because I don't have static versions of the dependencies installed.)

>> I'll probably commit it soon if there are no objections, even
>> though my testing has been rather limited, as it seems unlikely
>> to cause problems for anyone except those who use it.
> Since this is a developers only option, it is sufficient if we
> know about at least one working configuration.

True.  Committed in r1416646.

- Julian
Received on 2012-12-03 20:50:38 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.