<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On May 26, 2008, at 9:05 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Hello,<br><br>After a fun discussion regarding unit testing and coverage metrics, it came up that we don't have coverage analysis for LLVM proper. With a certain amount of experience in this arena, I set about building a nice overview. I don't have the toolset and commands fully integrated into the build system, and I'm not sure if doing so would be appropriate (its a somewhat fragile and annoying process, and would interfere with normal development/testing cycles), but I have a snapshot of the coverage posted online here:<br> <br><a href="http://chandlerc.net/llvm-coverage/">http://chandlerc.net/llvm-coverage/</a><br><br>Please feel free to dig around, ask questions, etc. Also, I can very quickly re-calculate coverage if people would like to push up tests. I'll be happy to regenerate the coverage on request, it only takes an hour or so, and isn't a lot of actual work.<br></blockquote></div><br><div>This is pretty spiffy. I'm (pleasantly) surprised we have 81.8% coverage for instcombine. It would be a specific case where it would be good to add regtests to try to get to 100%, given how tricky the code is. It would also be nice if your scripts covered autogenerated code like the tblgen produced files in the backend.</div><div><br></div><div>-Chris</div></body></html>