similar to: R test coverage

Yes, I think that would be enough. Thank you, Kurt! Llu?s On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 at 16:35, Kurt Hornik <Kurt.Hornik at wu.ac.at> wrote: > >>>>> Llu?s Revilla writes: > > Lluis, > > So in available.packages() I could replace > > if (is.null(fields)) > fields <- requiredFields > else { > stopifnot(is.character(fields))

On 12/10/24 00:35, Llu?s Revilla wrote: > Dear R-devel, > > I read with interest the recent blog post on how R will have parallel > downloads, on blog.r-project.org > (https://blog.r-project.org/2024/12/02/faster-downloads/index.html). > Thanks Tomas! > > The blog mentions that one of the areas where this will be observed is > while installing them (which I did!).

>>>>> Llu?s Revilla writes: Lluis, So in available.packages() I could replace if (is.null(fields)) fields <- requiredFields else { stopifnot(is.character(fields)) fields <- unique(c(requiredFields, fields)) } by someting like if(is.null(fields)) fields <- getOption("available_packages_fields") if(is.null(fields)) fields

Hi all, I have recently been researching how available.packages and install.packages filter packages from repositories with additional fields in their PACKAGES file. Currently there are some default filters, but users (and R admins) can set up their own filters by passing a list to the fields argument or adding them to the "available_packages_filters" option. But if the fields used by

Hi, llvm/clang experts I need to get the branch coverage for some testing code. But i found gcov can't give a expected coverage which may count some 'hidden branch' in (See stackoverflow answer <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/42003783/lcov-gcov-branch-coverage-with-c-producing-branches-all-over-the-place>). Instead, I turn to use clang and the 'source-based code

Hi Justin , Thank you for the confirmation and we would like to know that ,going forward the clang has the support the gcc gcov format or use the -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping and get ride of gcov format . We are planing to customize the clang code coverage for embedded world ,before we start tweaking the gcov / -fprofile-instr-generate code-base ,we would like to take feedback

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

Umesh Kalappa <umesh.kalappa0 at gmail.com> writes: > Hi Justin , > > Thank you for the confirmation and we would like to know that ,going > forward the clang has the support the gcc gcov format or use the > -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping and get ride of gcov > format . Going forward, the -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping (which I'll refer to as

Dear R-devel, I read with interest the recent blog post on how R will have parallel downloads, on blog.r-project.org (https://blog.r-project.org/2024/12/02/faster-downloads/index.html). Thanks Tomas! The blog mentions that one of the areas where this will be observed is while installing them (which I did!). However, I noticed they might be downloaded multiple times: If one interrupts the

Hi, Alan Thanks for making it clear. But I was more confused now :( I tested on a simple program and used both gcov and lcov to get branch coverage. The code and build commands as below: *Example simple.cc* #include <string> // If not comment this line, the branch coverage won't reach to 100% // #include <iostream> int main(int argc, const char* argv[]) { std::string str =

Hi All, We trying to use clang+llvm to generate the gcc coverage format as clang version 3.6.0 $clang --coverage -Xclang -coverage-cfg-checksum -Xclang -coverage-no-function-names-in-data -Xclang -coverage-version='407*' test.c $a.out $llvm-cov gcov test.gcda Unexpected version: *704. Invalid .gcno File! Debugging the above cause ,But any hints from experts here ,will help a lot

On Feb 12, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Justin is making nice commits for llvm-cov, so I thought we may continue this discussion now. > The quick-and-dirty implementation of coverage (in asan) is getting some early users and they seem to be happy. > AsanCoverage allows to collect per-function or per-basic-block coverage

On Feb 12, 2014, at 11:43 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote: > > On Feb 12, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Justin is making nice commits for llvm-cov, so I thought we may continue this

Heh, my ex-boss would die seeing something like this :-) Just one comment, does GCOV have a flag for a third category of lines, like "undesired to execute"? This would make the summary of <http://chandlerc.net/llvm-coverage/lib/Target/PowerPC/ PPCHazardRecognizers.cpp.gcov.html> much more favorable. Nice work! Cheers, Gabor

Updated set of patches for coverage. Changes: - change copyright lines - use gcov: instead of cover: in commit comment - use #ifdef in xen/common/sysctl.c instead of dummy inline function - added base documentation in docs/misc - added -h option to xencov

Hi Sylvestre, it seems the code coverage runs are not updated since a couple of months. http://llvm.org/reports/coverage/tools/polly/lib/Support/SCEVValidator.cpp.gcov.html The last run was on 2017-05-20 02:07:48. Are you still maintaining these? Is this on purpose? Any chance this could be fixed? Best, Tobias

Hi, I ran into the bug/feature request that you cannot flush gcov buffers while the app is running. They are only called when you exit the program, since the flush functions are registered with atexit(). This is the bug report: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=12144 I have what I think is a basic implementation of the `__gcov_flush` call, although I called this version `__llvm_gcov_flush`.

Hi! Thanks for this service! It is very helpful to know what is being developed. I distribute the content to other venues and I noticed some times that the updates are duplicated. For example, the sentence "?is.R()? is deprecated as no other S dialect is known to be in use (and this could only identify historical dialects, not future ones)." is duplicated in different days: Day 1:

Hi Everyone, I have uploaded a patch that allows one to successfully gather gcov/gcda coverage information on programs which unload shared libraries. It¹s a simple fix, just adding a few COMPILER_RT_VISIBILITY (i.e. __attribute__((visibility("hidden")))) in GCDAProfiling.c. Now, I¹d like to include a test program to demonstrate the fix. AFAICT, there seems to be a single test for

Hi all, I was trying to generate lcov test coverage reports for xapian-core but got an out of memory error: $ lcov --capture --directory . --output-file xapian-core.info Capturing coverage data from . Found gcov version: 4.7.3 Scanning . for .gcda files ... Found 270 data files in . Processing bin/xapian-progsrv.gcda Out of memory! These are the steps I followed in xapian-core directory