Menu
▾
▴
#304 Missing exclusion
This example shows a case where one part of an expression can never be zero as driven (the address is kept in range). The issue is that you cannot exclude just the power part of the expression. I was expecting I would need to exclude both pieces of the expression, but excluding the AND part of the expression blocks both warnings. Not something I would consider high priority, since I can get what I want, but it would be nice if this was handled more intuitively in the future.
This is with the latest 0.7 from CVS.
example file
I believe that this missing functionality is already described in the feature request list under #2927935. However, I am seeing a discrepancy in the summary vs. verbose output in the reports that does need to be fixed in the next stable release which is partly captured by the bug report, so I will include its patch here when I have it ready.
I have attached a patch that corrects an issue with verbose reporting. The results output in the summary report were not matching the verbose report when subexpressions were excluded from coverage.
Since this bug also represents a feature request to make excluding subexpressions a bit more robust which is represented in the feature request tracker, I am marking this bug as fixed and pending.
Bug fix patch
This Tracker item was closed automatically by the system. It was
previously set to a Pending status, and the original submitter
did not respond within 14 days (the time period specified by
the administrator of this Tracker).