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, St�phane 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





--
Cl�ment B�ra
Mate Virtual Machine Engineer
B�timent B 40, avenue Halley 59650�Villeneuve d'Ascq