From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,791b3f1b4bcfda0a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jamie@dcd00745.slip.digex.net (Jamie Schrumpf) Subject: Re: flowcharts in Ada for McCabe complexity Date: 1996/12/28 Message-ID: <5a4ann$1co@news3.digex.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 206482726 references: <32C5CDFD.71DE@ix.netcom.com> organization: Monrovia Communications newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-12-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <32C5CDFD.71DE@ix.netcom.com>, biery@ix.netcom.com says... > >I am trying to compute the McCabe cyclomatic complexity for some Ada >programs I've written, and I can't figure out how to draw the flowchart >for an exception handler. > >Does anyone have any experience with this, or can someone point me to a >reference (website, article, book, whatever) that can help me? Either >with Ada specific discussion of McCabe complexity, or just Ada specific >flowcharting. > >Thanks for any help, >Ingrid > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Ingrid Biery Software Engineering Technology >ingrid@cs.utk.edu ingrid@toolset.com >http://www.cs.utk.edu/~ingrid http://www.toolset.com/set.html Do you mean you can't figure out the flowchart for the exception part of the code, or how the branch to the handler fits in? Anyway, I worked on a project with the old DMA a couple of years ago where we put 1 meg SLOC through the McCabe Battlemap toolset. That was quite a learning experience, I must say. I don't have my notes at home, but the McCabe site is at http://www.mccabe.com. Maybe a question put to them would help you out -- if SET isn't a competitor, that is... ;-) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jamie Schrumpf http://www.access.digex.net/~moncomm Arthur C. Clarke almost got it right -- what he should have said was: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from God."