Has someone encountered similar issues with -cov?

Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Fri Jul 1 11:46:45 PDT 2016


On 7/1/16 2:15 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 7/1/16 2:05 PM, Chris wrote:
>> On Friday, 1 July 2016 at 16:30:41 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16224 -- Andrei
>>
>> I fail to see why it should not mark it as uncovered in the `cube`
>> example. After all the statement is never covered, because `do` executes
>> before the condition in `while` is checked. Unless you mean it should be
>> optimized away by the compiler, which in turn has nothing to do with
>> -cov.
>
> Yah it's a bit subtle. That line is in fact pure punctuation, so even
> though there's no flow through it that's totally fine (as much as you
> wouldn't expect a line with a "}" to show no coverage). -- Andrei

Suppose one wants to check if you've covered all cases inside the while 
loop (with breaks or returns). Then, one would WANT to see 0 coverage 
there (non-zero coverage would mean an error in logic).

To remove that feedback would mess up someone else's use case.

-Steve


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list