Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

GDB vs froglogic Coco Code Coverage comparison

Qt Group and GNU are both solutions in the Debugging category. Qt Group is ranked #6, while GNU is ranked #3. Qt Group holds a 4.0% mindshare in D, compared to GNU’s 13.8% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Qt Group users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of GNU users who would recommend it.
froglogic Coco Code Coverage
Read 1 froglogic Coco Code Coverage review
  • 197 Views
  • 44 Comparison Views
100% willing to recommend
GDB
Read 1 GDB review
  • 211 Views
  • 165 Comparison Views
100% willing to recommend
 

Categories and Ranking

froglogic Coco Code Coverage
Ranking in Debugging
6th
Average Rating
7.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
GDB
Ranking in Debugging
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Debugging category, the mindshare of froglogic Coco Code Coverage is 4.0%, up from 3.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of GDB is 13.8%, up from 13.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Debugging
 

Featured Reviews

AnirbanSarkar - PeerSpot reviewer
Integrates well, highly scalable, but more programming langue support needed
If someone is already using Squish as a regression tool, froglogic Coco Code Coverage can be a very handy add-on to that. If somebody is already having some mechanism to write their unit test cases, froglogic Coco Code Coverage can be a very good tool for giving the code coverage. The solution overall is still in development, they need to polish a few things moving forward. I rate froglogic Coco Code Coverage a seven out of ten.
Read full review
it_user1158 - PeerSpot reviewer
A very good open source debugger, can be run on various platforms, and supports debugging many programming platforms.
- One of the best open source debuggers that are suitable for debugging a code base written in C/C++, Java, Fortran, etc., on a lot of platforms, including Linux. - It has the feature of debugging the Operating System kernel code base, which is not possible on other debuggers. - It can also be used to debug code base or executables on a remote machine. - It can be very easily scripted to automate the debug process and gather debug information, which can prove to be quite handy - It can be used to examine memory footprint and can be used to change variable values during the debug process itself.
Read full review
report
See which vendors are best for you
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Debugging solutions are best for your needs.
See recommendations
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparisons

No data available
Rogue Wave TotalView vs GDB Logo
Rogue Wave TotalView vs GDB
Compared 52% of the time
GNU DDD vs GDB Logo
GNU DDD vs GDB
Compared 48% of the time
More GDB Competitors
 

Learn More

Qt Group
GNU
 

Overview

The Coco code coverage tool is a complete, cross-platform, cross-compiler tool chain allowing to analyze the test coverage of C, C++, C# and Tcl code.

Coco is used to

  • Find and highlight untested code sections
  • Find redundant tests (i.e., tests that merely duplicate others)
  • Find unreachable code
  • Compute the optimal order of test execution that will maximize the overall coverage
  • Compare the test coverage of two application versions or test executions.
GDB, the GNU Project debugger, allows you to see what is going on `inside' another program while it executes -- or what another program was doing at the moment it crashed.
 

Sample Customers

Google, Nokia, Pfizer, Siemens, Synopsys, Airbus, Boeing, Mercedes Benz, Disney, Shell, Reuters, Vodafone, XILINX, GE, Ericsson
Information Not Available
See our list of best Debugging vendors.

We monitor all Debugging reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.