Feature request: Call coverage #23

Activity

1. oberpar commented on Mar 3, 2017

   

   oberpar

   on Mar 3, 2017

   Contributor

   More actions

   Interesting idea. I haven't given call coverage much thought yet. It appears that gcov provides all the required data when running it with option -b (which LCOV already does for getting branch coverage). I can see the benefit of having this function added to LCOV, though I don't think I will be getting to implement this any time soon, but patches are of course welcome.

   Let's think the interface through for a moment:

   • Call coverage data would need to be added to the .info file format. Something like CLDA:<line number>,<call number>,<taken>, based on gcov's "call x returned y" data
   • The data could be visualized either like function coverage data, or like branch coverage data. That is, either:
     a) There should be a page listing all call sites in a source code file similar to the page for function coverage. This could be a table with columns for Line number, call number, source code for that line, followed by execution count
     or
     b) Similar to the "Branch data" column in source code view, there should be another column "Call data" that shows coverage of calls in a line similar to how branch coverage data is shown, with colored [+ -] signs.
   • Page headers would need to show call coverage rates for each file and directory
   • The top level and directory level views should contain another column for call coverage rates per file
   • There should be an option to turn off call coverage, something like a lcov_call_coverage= directive in the lcovrc file

   Thoughts and comments on this are welcome.

   👍React with 👍1Reacted by Rafael L
2. MMelzig commented on Mar 6, 2017

   

   MMelzig

   on Mar 6, 2017

   Author

   More actions

   The thoughts concerning the interface are really complete. But the part "b) Similar to the "Branch data" column in source code view, there should be another column "Call data" that shows..." can blow up the report. A simple line can have several calls as well as each condition in an e.g. if statement can include calls.

   My intention for this feature request is to give tester and quality manager an overview of the reached call coverage together with statement and branch coverage at the end of a development / test phase. I expect that the analysis of missing test cases is done on the basis of the statement and branch coverage mainly. If there is a lack of call coverage this can be found in the not covered statements and branches, which should not be that much when we come to the end of the test.

   So for my intention an implementation of the annotation in the code can be postponed until somebody really ask for this.
3. linux-test-project

   locked and limited conversation to collaborators on Sep 19, 2025
4. henry2cox

   converted this issue into a discussion #438 on Sep 19, 2025