Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!ncrlnk!ncratl!dspoon
From: dspoon@ncratl.Atlanta.NCR.COM (dspoon)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Code coverage analysis tools and C++
Keywords: lock, keyhole, bolt, door, ring, teeth, tumblers
Message-ID: <352@ncratl.Atlanta.NCR.COM>
Date: 14 Apr 89 13:00:21 GMT
Organization: SE-Retail
Lines: 27

We are interested in finding a code coverage analysis tool to perform
code coverage analysis on our C++ code, which will be compiled using
Zortech's C++ Compiler.  Thus the tool must work under MS-DOS. I 
wonder if code coverage analysis for C++ differs from that for C 
code...in C, functions are "stand-alone entities", and if you exercise 
the limits of defined input parameters, you've probably got a "safe"
routine or module.  But in C++, is it also necessary to ensure that 
inherited methods perform as expected?  Seems like the language 
(and OOP philosophy) stresses that a tested base class is solid 
and can be built upon without further need to confirm inherited 
methods in derived classes.  But if you "happen to have" friends, 
protected data, and other small violations of encapsulation, it 
does seem you'd want to confirm inherited methods.

Another area that I think needs attention on the topic is inline
functions...seems like a C++ code coverage analysis tool would need to
know if the compiler actually gave you an inline method or not.  Inlines
can be "covered" as they occur in the code, but !inlines (i.e.,
converted to functions) fall under the same requirements as the rest of
a class's methods. 

You got any thoughts you'd care to add?

-------------------------------David Witherspoon-------------------------------
D.Witherspoon@Atlanta.NCR.COM         | "It's not the code that counts...
NCR Sys Engineering-Retail/Atlanta    |   it's the attitude!"
MY OPINIONS...ALL MINE!!!             |                         - me