Hmm, isn't their example in 7.0 wrong? The opposite of "a>b" (in C, anyway, AFAIK) isn't "a<=b", because if a==b==NaN both expressions are false (right?).
Just goes to show how hard testing all cases is! How many cases do you need to get full branch coverage on "a>b && c!=25"? I'm thinking 5, but I'm not very sure of that.
Just goes to show how hard testing all cases is! How many cases do you need to get full branch coverage on "a>b && c!=25"? I'm thinking 5, but I'm not very sure of that.