From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 113885 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2017 17:16:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 112675 invoked by uid 89); 28 Apr 2017 17:16:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_RED autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*i:sk:bbca483, H*f:sk:bbca483, mine X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 17:16:49 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1d49Vf-0007SU-Ce from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:16:48 -0700 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.87) by svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 18:07:35 +0100 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d49Mh-0003q4-CT; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 17:07:31 +0000 Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 17:16:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Jeff Law CC: Richard Biener , =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Martin_Li=A8ka?= , GCC Development , Jan Hubicka , David Malcolm Subject: Re: LCOV of current GCC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20cf5d7c-ee4f-9a83-d610-426333951804@suse.cz> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) To svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) X-SW-Source: 2017-04/txt/msg00144.txt.bz2 On Fri, 28 Apr 2017, Jeff Law wrote: > I did some similar work a few years back. Martin's results are comparable to > mine. Interestingly enough the 70-80% coverage we see for GCC is a "sweet > spot" in that several of the ancillary tools I tested were in the same overall > range. My observation from looking at some of the C front-end results is that many of the coverage omissions are from features only used / supported on certain architectures, e.g. address spaces and fixed point (though actually there are address spaces on x86, but maybe not tests covering much of the generic address space support). -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com