Code Coverage for Zig with Callgrind

This is a nice write-up. Since zig has quite extensive compile-time functionality, one drawback is it is often easy to miss untested branches, especially for non-native targets if they are not regularly tested. It would be quite beneficial to be able to combine coverage reports from different targets to get a full picture of the tested code.

I have previously used kcov [1] to perform coverage testing which due to zig having good DWARF debugging information worked with no fanfare. However, I'm not too familiar with the shortcomings of this method vs. the more fully instrumented binary approach provided.

[1] https://github.com/SimonKagstrom/kcov

I wish there was a repo where someone figured out how to generate coverage data for "all languages" into a single coverage format and write standardized merging and rendering tools, etc.

It's one of those fundamental things that should just work the same across every ecosystem.

About memory allocator:

Sorry for the possibly silly question but I did not understand if Zig has a Rust similar concept of "borrow" for pointers, of it is based on static analysis of allocator?

Zig seems to me easier to use than Rust on this respect, but I cannot understand the difference (because I do not know them very well)

meta: Unless you're using TeX, drop the full justification. It looks awful, IMO, and makes it somewhat harder to read.

Reasonable people can disagree.

Reader mode was a savior, here.