Joel Sherrill joel at rtems.org
Fri Jan 13 14:54:42 UTC 2017

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Sebastian Huber <sebastian.huber at embedded-
brains.de> wrote:

> On 13/01/17 09:48, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>> On 12/01/17 22:44, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>> I repeat that I would like to purge old tests that result in
>>> conditionals in
>>> source code we no longer need. So any HAVE_XXX that are a side
>>> effect of transitioning newlib additions should be removed.
>> I removed three tests today which I added in the last two years or so.
> I removed a couple of more obsolete configure stuff. I am done for now.
Thanks. It is a continuous battle of creep and push back.

Without looking, I am sure you are right that __RTEMS_DO_NOT_
is no longer used but it did serve a purpose that may have been lost in all

When doing coverage testing, inlining a method with one of more conditionals
increases the cyclomatic complexity of the calling method and number of test
cases required to do full coverage of all branch paths. That flag eliminated
at least 250 paths to test in the generated code.

With the rework, did anything get inlined lots of times that includes a
conditional test? If so, then the calling method has hidden cyclomatic
complexity and requires increased test cases for full coverage.

I am pretty sure this is written down as advice in the coverage area
but I have no idea how to turn it into good solid coding style/rules.
The best I can formulate is:

Inlining a method requires that it be fully tested in the context of each
place it is called. Inlining complex methods with conditionals is
from a coverage testing viewpoint. Try to inline only simple methods.


> --
> Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
> Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
> Phone   : +49 89 189 47 41-16
> Fax     : +49 89 189 47 41-09
> E-Mail  : sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
> PGP     : Public key available on request.
> Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20170113/1f710f58/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the devel mailing list