Defaulting total to 1 for each function, adds up to the
counting error. testing/cover.go already does this once.
Fixes#20515
Change-Id: I0e3f524c2ccb628eb9a8f0a1f81c22365c24cf9a
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/44337
Run-TryBot: Dhananjay Nakrani <dhananjayn@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org>
Parser doesn't attach some compiler directives to anything in the tree.
We have to explicitely retain them in the generated code. This change,
makes cover explicitely print out any compiler directive that wasn't
handled in the ast.Visitor.
Fixes#18285.
Change-Id: Ib60f253815e92d7fc85051a7f663a61116e40a91
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/34563
Run-TryBot: Rob Pike <r@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Rob Pike <r@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
Consider a switch like
switch x {
case foo:
f()
g()
}
Before, the coverage annotation for the block calling f and g included
in its position span the text for 'case foo:'. This looks nice in the coverage
report, but it breaks the invariant that coverage blocks are disjoint if
you have a more complex expression like:
switch x {
case func() int { return foo }():
f()
g()
}
Then the coverage analysis wants to annotate the func literal body,
which overlaps with the case body, because the case body is considered
to begin at the case token.
Change the annotation for a case body to start just after the colon of
the case clause, avoiding any potential conflict with complex case
expressions. Could have started at the colon instead, but it seemed
less weird to start just after it.
Fixes#16540.
Change-Id: I1fec4bc2a53c7092e649dc0d4be1680a697cb79b
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/32612
Run-TryBot: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Gerrand <adg@golang.org>
If a labeled statement is the target of a goto, we must treat it as the
boundary of a new basic block, but only if it is not already the boundary
of a basic block such as a labeled for loop.
Fixes#16624
Now reports 100% coverage for the test in the issue.
Change-Id: If118bb6ff53a96c738e169d92c03cb3ce97bad0e
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/30977
Reviewed-by: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Robert Griesemer <gri@golang.org>
Currently, it separates comments from rest of the AST. This causes problems when
long counter increment statements are added before compiler directives.
See Issue #17315.
This change moves comments handling into AST Visitor so that when printer prints
code from AST, position of compiler directives relative to the associated function
is preserved.
Tested with https://gist.github.com/dhananjay92/837df6bc1f171b1350f85d7a7d59ca1e
and unit test.
Fixes#17315
Change-Id: I61a80332fc1923de6fc59ff63b953671598071fa
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/30161
Reviewed-by: Rob Pike <r@golang.org>
When visiting the AST to add counters, there are special cases in which
the code calls cuts the walking short by returning nil. In some cases
certain nodes are ignored, e.g. Init and Cond inside IfStmt.
The fix is to explicitly walk all the children nodes (not only
Body and Else) when cutting the current walk. Similar approach
was taken with SwitchStmt and TypeSwitchStmt.
While the existing test code doesn't handle different counters in the
same line, the generated HTML report does it correctly (because it takes
column into account).
The previous behavior caused lines in function literals to not be
tracked when those literals were inside Init or Cond of an IfStmt for
example.
Fixes#14039.
Change-Id: Iad591363330843ad833bd79a0388d709c8d0c8aa
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/19775
Reviewed-by: Rob Pike <r@golang.org>
This required dealing with the ill-advised split of the profile code
into a separate package. I just copied it over unchanged. The package
does not deserve to be in the standard repository. We can cope
with the duplication.
Also update the go command to know about the new location.
Fixes#10528.
Change-Id: I05170ef3663326d57b9c18888d01163acd9256b6
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/9560
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
