This is the mail archive of the
elfutils-devel@sourceware.org
mailing list for the elfutils project.
Re: New test for elf_flag{data,ehdr,elf,phdr}
- From: Marek Polacek <mpolacek at redhat dot com>
- To: elfutils-devel at lists dot fedorahosted dot org
- Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 15:41:37 +0200
- Subject: Re: New test for elf_flag{data,ehdr,elf,phdr}
On 05/09/2011 01:20 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> I have to agree with roland, that this doesn't really test that much,
> except if you can flip the bits.
Yep, that is true, I've already thrown it away. I just didn't know
how else/better can this be tested.
> How are you measuring coverage?
Using the lcov. Here's what I do:
$ ./configure --enable-gcov
$ make -j4 check
$ lcov --directory . --capture --output-file blah.info
$ genhtml blah.info
$ firefox index.html
Here's how the result looks like (current git):
http://people.redhat.com/mpolacek/tmp/eu-lcov/
Which reminds me, do you (or anyone) please have a suggestion what should I test
next?
libebl isn't stable, libelf is quite well-covered, and in libdw the most
important functions are also covered already. Maybe the libdwfl could use some
additional test, for instance core_file.c or link_map.c. But I'm not sure
if it is even worth it. Is it?
> Shouldn't these functions be exercised by some the the unstrip tests?
I don't know. elf_flag{data,ehdr,elf,phdr} are used in update{2,3,4}.c,
but the coverage is only ~40%. Well, it is probably fine as it is.
Marek