What code coverage tools have you used with Symbian C++ and Maemo? What are the pros and cons of the tool you are using?
+4
A:
On Symbian I've used BullseyeCoverage and Testwell CTC++. Cannot really describe the pros/cons of them in detail. Both got the job done, eventually. Both needed some effort with setup and integration with an automated test suite. Both contained bugs that e.g. crashed the downstream compiler with slightly broken instrumented source code.
On Maemo, since the toolchain is GCC based, I'd guess gcov would be a good starting point. Though I haven't been working on Maemo much yet and haven't done any coverage measurement there.
laalto
2009-09-30 08:19:08
Is Bullseye limited to the Symbian OS emulator?
tonylo
2009-09-30 12:55:06
I've used Bullseye for Symbian code coverage but haven't had the chance to test CTC++. How does it compare against Bullseye?
Riussi
2009-09-30 15:08:55
+1
A:
See SD C++ Test Coverage for a tool that has extremely low overhead and works very well in embedded environments.
Ira Baxter
2009-10-03 04:41:40
A:
I have used Bullseye Coverage on Symbian and it is very good. The only problem is that it only runs on emulator and not hardware. Therefore you would not be able to get coverage metrics from a device or devboard. If your app runs on both hardware and emulator, this won't be a big deal (apart from the standard differences between running on emulator vs hardware). Also, as there are plans to replace the emulator with a proper hardware simulator, perhaps bullseye wouldn't be the best choice.
steprobe
2009-11-06 16:04:57
A:
gcov can be used (and is used) in maemo platform and tool called lcov can then be used to generate "pretty" reports.
However, in order use gcov in maemo sdk, you need to disable compiler cache during the build time when you are creating binaries for coverage execution..
rasjani
2009-11-11 20:09:05