But Logtalk cannot help in profiling the Prolog systems it is
layered on. Further you will only find a few Prolog systems that
open their own Prolog execution to profiling. And then they might
only open the 100% Prolog implemented part and but not
natively implemented parts. This is why for example missing
test cases for PIP-0110 such as the following don’t get caught:
/* Trealla Prolog 2.94.12 */
?- format("~3R", [7625597484987]), nl.
%%% crash
Migtht be a coverage problem that big int together with upper case
in format/3 was not tested. So some big int paths in the code would
show up in the Cobertura ( = Coverage ) report as unused.
Actually it crashes on Windows 11 with 0xc0000005, so it might
be also a matrix testing problem. A Prolog system known for its
profiler is SWI-Prolog. But a Cobertura ( = Coverage ) report
would show more than only byrd box ports:
A Cobertura ( = Coverage ) report usually go down to
source code line numbers, or even finer. SWI-Prolog
seems to offer something coarser, since it has both
library(prolog_profile) and library(prolog_coverage), the
later on clause level it seems. But Logtalk is totally on the
mercy of the underlying Prolog system, to deliver more than
only a profiling of the test harness, namely the profiling of
the implementation of predicates. Profiling of the implementations
would be needed for Enterprise grade coverage reports.