search for: cov4

...); v <- rep(0:1, each=n); trt <- rep(sample(rep(0:1, each=n/2), n), times=2) df <- data.frame(id, v, trt, y=2 + rep(rnorm(10,0,sd1), times=2) + 0.5*v + 0.7*trt + 0.2*v*trt + rnorm(2*n, 0, sd2)) m1 <- lme(y ~ v + trt + v*trt, data=df, random= ~ 1|id) summary(m1) par4 <- m1$coef$fixed cov4 <- vcov(m1) cm4 <- matrix(c(0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1), nrow = 2, ncol=4, byrow=TRUE, dimnames = list(c("diff/v=0", "diff/v=1"), c("C.1", "C.2", "C.3", "C.4"))) v4 <- csimint(estpar=par4, df=n-6, # I'm not sure whether I found...

...Sorry, this is not clang/llvm question. But I am still looking forward to some suggestions. For example, if I add iostream header back to simple.cc, then we won't get a 100% branch coverage. This may because iostream will introduce some global destruction branch. [image: cov4.png] Or if it's impossible, can we think clang region coverage should be a best practice *in C++ testing world*?? AFAIK, chromium is using region coverage now. [image: cov5.png] FYI. Thanks, Ted Xie Phipps, Alan <a-phipps at ti.com> 于2020年5月4日周一 上午12:54写道： > + Vedant Ku...

Hi, Alan Really very excited to receive your email and sorry to be slow replying, it has been exceptionally busy over the last few days ;( Your explanation made the problem clear to me. So gcov branch coverage should be called condition coverage and clang region coverage is branch coverage in fact(also known as *decision/C1*), right? And llvm/clang will support all the following coverage