Thanks very much for this Derrick. I looked into it and it turns out that the missing coverage in blame.c for "certainties[i] = CERTAINTY_NOT_CALCULATED" was due to earlier code overwriting the same value in most cases, thereby defeating an optimization. I've deleted that earlier code and now coverage is as expected. I posted the patch here: https://public-inbox.org/git/20190601210925.15339-1-michael@xxxxxxxxx/T/#u I also deleted the other uncovered code that appeared in the same patch as it was unreachable. > On 5/30/2019 8:52 AM, Derrick Stolee wrote: > > blame.c > > 170072f9 846) (result[i] >= most_certain_line_a || > > 170072f9 847) second_best_result[i] >= most_certain_line_a)) { > > 170072f9 848) certainties[i] = CERTAINTY_NOT_CALCULATED; > > This section appears in the following block: > > /* More invalidating of results that may be affected by the choice of > * most certain line. > * Discard the matches for lines in B that are currently matched with a > * line in A such that their ordering contradicts the ordering imposed > * by the choice of most certain line. > */ > for (i = most_certain_local_line_b - 1; i >= invalidate_min; --i) { > /* In this loop we discard results for lines in B that are > * before most-certain-line-B but are matched with a line in A > * that is after most-certain-line-A. > */ > if (certainties[i] >= 0 && > (result[i] >= most_certain_line_a || > second_best_result[i] >= most_certain_line_a)) { > certainties[i] = CERTAINTY_NOT_CALCULATED; > } > } > for (i = most_certain_local_line_b + 1; i < invalidate_max; ++i) { > /* In this loop we discard results for lines in B that are > * after most-certain-line-B but are matched with a line in A > * that is before most-certain-line-A. > */ > if (certainties[i] >= 0 && > (result[i] <= most_certain_line_a || > second_best_result[i] <= most_certain_line_a)) { > certainties[i] = CERTAINTY_NOT_CALCULATED; > } > } > > Note that the first for loop includes the uncovered lines. The logical operands > are backwards of the conditions in the second for loop, which are covered. This > seems non-trivial enough to merit a test.
