Actually, it is quite different than Jejak. Implementation wise, Jejak used Opal so I guess it relies on bytecode modification to do its analysis where my tool relies on ast annotations. This implies some difference in features. It seems that Jejak record all calls, all values and all assignments in a method (which is byte code level feature), whereas I record for each ast node if it was interpreted or not (which is ast level feature). I guess there would be a little difference in the use cases. 2013/4/6 Frank Shearar <frank.shearar@gmail.com>
On 6 April 2013 07:47, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
Clement built in a couple of hours the following nice branch analysecoverage tools :) It is dead slow but cool.
By "branch coverage tool" do you mean Jejak?
frank
-- Clément Béra Mate Virtual Machine Engineer Bâtiment B 40, avenue Halley 59650 *Villeneuve d'Ascq*