| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |