Writing code is hard, and it’s never right the first time. It’s best to find the problems in our code before the GTA/boss/customers find them. That’s why we write test cases. However, the question arises: Did we test all of our code? People have a natural tendency to test only the parts of the code that they’re confident about, and shy away from the questionable parts.                 
If only there were some way to know if we’d tested it all!                 
gcov is a code coverage tool. It tells you how many times each line in your code has been executed. This tells you:                 
Granted, #2 is only an approximation, since it only tells you how many times the line is being executed. Not all lines of code take the same amount of time—consider the assignment of an integer, as opposed to calculating a cosine. However, it’s often a good-enough approximation.                 
In this lab, we will use gcov
to:
~cs253/Labs/Coverage
to a convenient location in your home directory.
code.cc
.
Take a minute or two to look at the code, including the test
cases in main()
.
make
g++
options.
./code
gcov code.cc
more code.cc.gcov
#####
for never executed, or -
for a non-executable line),
a line number, and the source code for that line.
#####
. Those lines weren’t tested.
main()
for those untested lines.
make
), rerun (./code
),
and recreate the coverage data (gcov code.cc
).
code.cc.gcov
,
and find the lines that start with the largest number.
It should be the routine days_per_month()
. Resist the urge
to optimize that code. Instead, find out who’s calling it
tens of millions of times. The culprit should be line 112 or so.
#if 0
.
Try making that code active, recompile, rerun, recreate coverage data,
and see if it helped.
leap()
.
Observe how it almost always calculates the modulus (%
) three
times for each year. Since most years are not leap years, this
is silly. Make this code more efficient, without
sacrificing clarity, and prove it using gcov
data.
Before you do that, however, run code
and save the output. After you make your improvements to leap()
,
run code
again and diff the output, so you’ll know if you
broke it or not.
gcov code.cc
, run gcov -b code.cc
, for branch
flow analysis.
Makefile
to compile with -DNDEBUG
, which
turns off assertions. Recompile, rerun, and see what gcov -b code.cc
gives you.
leap()
and see if it makes sense.
operator>>
.
Note that some branches are taken 0% of the time. Why?
What still isn’t being tested?
User: Guest