| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL WWW <pgsql-www(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bogus reports from coverage.postgresql.org |
| Date: | 2018-03-14 20:45:04 |
| Message-ID: | 16248.1521060304@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-www |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> Hmm. I wonder if this means that the reports generated with any
> compiler prior to gcc 8 are unreliable. At least we know now that that
> is indeed the case with branch coverage, but what about without?
Well, that's probably an overly strong conclusion; if lcov were broken
in general, people would've noticed before now. I have a question in
to the lcov mailing list at sourceforge to see if anyone wants to offer
a more informed opinion, though.
In the short term it seems clear that we'd better turn off
lcov_branch_coverage at coverage.postgresql.org, as I see you've
already done.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-03-14 20:55:19 | Re: Bogus reports from coverage.postgresql.org |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-03-14 20:02:40 | Re: Bogus reports from coverage.postgresql.org |