<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Code-Coverage on Pi Stack</title>
    <link>https://www.pistack.xyz/tags/code-coverage/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Code-Coverage on Pi Stack</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://www.pistack.xyz/tags/code-coverage/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Self-Hosted C/C&#43;&#43; Code Coverage Tools: gcov vs lcov vs gcovr vs kcov</title>
      <link>https://www.pistack.xyz/posts/2026-06-26-cpp-code-coverage-tools-gcov-lcov-gcovr-kcov/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.pistack.xyz/posts/2026-06-26-cpp-code-coverage-tools-gcov-lcov-gcovr-kcov/</guid>
      <description>&lt;h2 id=&#34;introduction&#34;&gt;Introduction&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Code coverage is one of the most actionable metrics in software quality assurance. It tells you which lines, branches, and functions are exercised by your test suite — and more importantly, which ones are not. For C and C++ projects, where undefined behavior, memory errors, and subtle logic bugs are ever-present threats, systematic coverage analysis is not optional.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
