Re: Bogus reports from coverage.postgresql.org

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 20:02:40
Message-ID: 20180314200240.t2un5u2eybudldtv@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-www

Tom Lane wrote:

> Well, this is darn interesting. I got the Fedora lcov maintainer
> to push an update absorbing the upstream "gcc 8" fixes. (Turned
> out he'd already done that for rawhide, but forgot to push it into
> the F28 branch.) And with that, and gcc 8.0.1, ... no bug. The
> lines are marked "lineNoCov" with or without lcov_branch_coverage.

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?

While we're on this topic ... Some time ago, I looked into whether it
would be possible to make the coverage report ignore the elog(ERROR)
lines, which are --or should be-- unreachable code and thus we don't
care too much about test coverage. Finding no way to implement that, I
gave up (I tried adding exclusion markers in the elog definition, as
documented in geninfo. Perhaps I did it wrong). But maybe it is
possible with these recent improvements?

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-www by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-03-14 20:45:04 Re: Bogus reports from coverage.postgresql.org
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-03-14 19:52:40 Re: Bogus reports from coverage.postgresql.org