[buckminster-dev] Wrong Emma Basic Block Count in Report

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]

[buckminster-dev] Wrong Emma Basic Block Count in Report

From: Marcel Hoetter <Marcel.Hoetter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:13:38 +0100
List-archive: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/buckminster-dev>
List-help: <mailto:buckminster-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=help>
List-subscribe: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/buckminster-dev>, <mailto:buckminster-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/options/buckminster-dev>, <mailto:buckminster-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Newsgroups: eclipse.tools.buckminster-dev
Organization: EclipseCorner
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4

Hi Buckminster team,

comparing Emma coverage results from reports generated in my Eclipse IDE and via Buckminster (3.6),it came to my attention that the number of basic blocks reported by Buckminster is wrong: itrepresents the number of instructions instead.


The actual basic block count is not reported at all.

I think this is related to Emma Bug 2470533:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2470533&group_id=108932&atid=651897

The bug is still open, but seems to be fixed in recent Emma versions.

Is a version bump in Buckminster possible?

Greetings,

Marcel

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [buckminster-dev] Wrong Emma Basic Block Count in Report
  - From: Marcel Hoetter

Prev by Date: [buckminster-dev] Passing javac parameter
Next by Date: Re: [buckminster-dev] Passing javac parameter
Previous by thread: [buckminster-dev] Passing javac parameter
Next by thread: Re: [buckminster-dev] Wrong Emma Basic Block Count in Report
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Breadcrumbs