clang Testing Coverage

For those interested in this sort of thing, here are the prettified
gcov results of clang running on its test suite (71.6%):

http://keeda.stanford.edu/~ddunbar/clang/coverage/

And running on the test suite + LLVM’s test suite (72.7%):

http://keeda.stanford.edu/~ddunbar/clang/coverage.full/

Better than I expected, but it would be great to push those numbers
higher if anyone is bored. :wink:

  • Daniel

p.s. Tested on a i686-pc-linux-gnu system.

Nice! Looking at liblex, it looks like we need to test headermaps (horrible apple feature), backtracking (new and shiny!), 6 of the 9 trigraphs, escaped newlines and trigraphs in identifiers, unterminated block comments, nul characters in the middle of file, the MS charize extension, some random expressions in the pp expr parsing, and some even more strange stuff…

-Chris

Daniel Dunbar wrote:

For those interested in this sort of thing, here are the prettified
gcov results of clang running on its test suite (71.6%):

http://keeda.stanford.edu/~ddunbar/clang/coverage/ <http://keeda.stanford.edu/~ddunbar/clang/coverage/&gt;

And running on the test suite + LLVM's test suite (72.7%):

http://keeda.stanford.edu/~ddunbar/clang/coverage.full/ <http://keeda.stanford.edu/~ddunbar/clang/coverage.full/&gt;

Better than I expected, but it would be great to push those numbers
higher if anyone is bored. :wink:

Hi Daniel,

This is very useful! Can we have it regularly updated, like the doxygen build ?

-Argiris