This fixes some print calls with wrong format directives. Additionally,
struct initialisers were changed to use keyed fields, purely to reduce
the amount of noise generated by go vet.
Change-Id: Ib9f6fd8f2dff7ce84826478de0ba83dda9746270
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/21180
Reviewed-by: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org>
This peculiar case arose in range statements but there are other contexts
and one turned up in the auto-generated translation of the compiler.
Take care of it always.
for i := 0; i < 0; func() {i++; q=q.Link}() { ... }
That code has been given the obvious rewrite but we should still handle it.
Odd but easy to fix (tricky to test).
Fixes#10269.
Change-Id: I66e1404eb24da15a24be7f67403e19ed66fba0a7
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/8284
Reviewed-by: Robert Griesemer <gri@golang.org>
Cover deleted all comments because they can break the simple way that
counters are injected into the rewritten source. But //go: comments have
semantic value, and for instance go test -cover runtime fails during
compilation because of their absence from the annotated source.
We can keep the //go: comments because they are at the beginning of
the line and are not affected by our counter injection.
Fixes#10270.
After this CL, go test -cover runtime works.
A testing strategy that does not involve a golden file would be welcome
but I can't think of one.
Change-Id: I73f7b7a36383a8efed8e33fa2414cd0eac7d015a
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/8173
Reviewed-by: Robert Griesemer <gri@golang.org>
Given
x()
panic(1)
y()
the y should not show as covered.
Fixes#10185
Change-Id: Iec61f1b096a888e6727be5f4526508654f5d3c91
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/8140
Reviewed-by: Robert Griesemer <gri@golang.org>
Just missed a case (ha!) in the tree walk. Dup the code for an empty switch, add test.
Fixes#10163.
Change-Id: I3d50ab6cb450ca21e87213291eaab8cbe924fac5
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/7641
Reviewed-by: Andrew Gerrand <adg@golang.org>
We want to make an if look like two blocks and have the coverage
report for the else block decorate the "else" keyword with the right
color. To do this, we adjust the apparent starting point of the else
block to include the "else".
The previous code assumed the way to do this was to move the
width of "else " backwards from the else block's opening brace, but
that assumes there is a space there. Instead, we now just start the
else block exactly at the end of the if block. Simpler, cleaner, and
fixes a bug.
Fixesgolang/go#8557.
LGTM=gri
R=gri
CC=golang-codereviews
https://golang.org/cl/127620043
Split the profile parsing code out of cmd/cover into
a reusable package, to support third-party coverage
tools.
R=golang-dev, r, adg
CC=golang-dev
https://golang.org/cl/36050045
Break the basic block at the function literal. The code to do this analysis
was already there; this CL just factors it out more nicely and uses it in
one new place. Also adds a test.
Fixesgolang/go#6555.
R=golang-dev, adg
CC=golang-dev
https://golang.org/cl/14601043
This requires a little more tree rewriting to put a block around the if of an "else if".
More tests too.
R=golang-dev, adg
CC=golang-dev
https://golang.org/cl/11042045
This number will allow us to give a conventional meaning to "coverage":
the percentage of executable statements visited by the test.
R=adonovan
CC=golang-dev
https://golang.org/cl/10271045
We are going to need one more piece of data, so rather than create
a third variable let's just put it all in one struct. The interface gets
easier too.
R=adonovan
CC=golang-dev
https://golang.org/cl/10271044
This is just the tool proper; stitching into "go test" will be a separate CL.
Tests are missing - they'll come once it's integrated - but it can handle,
perhaps correctly, all of src/pkg/...
The basic approach is to rewrite the source to add annotations that will
track coverage; the rewritten source must of course be compiled and
run after this tool has done its job.
R=adonovan
CC=golang-dev
https://golang.org/cl/10102043
