Re: coverage analysis improvements

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> OK, I was not aware that people are using it that way.

At least one.

> So updated patch
> set there, which separates coverage and coverage-html into two
> independent targets.

Thanks for the new versions.

Patches 4 and 5 could be merged. They step on each other's code paths.
Some other things could be merged as well.

coverage-html-stamp: lcov_base.info lcov_test.info
rm -rf coverage
- $(GENHTML) $(GENHTML_FLAGS) -o coverage --title='$(GENHTML_TITLE)'
--num-spaces=4 --prefix='$(abs_top_srcdir)' $^
+ $(GENHTML) $(GENHTML_FLAGS) -o coverage --title='$(GENHTML_TITLE)'
--num-spaces=4 $^
touch $@
Actually this is very nice. I have been always enforcing
abs_top_srcdir when using coverage stuff on things out of the main
tree.

-SPI.c: SPI.xs plperl_helpers.h
+%.c: %.xs
@if [ x"$(perl_privlibexp)" = x"" ]; then echo "configure switch
--with-perl was not specified."; exit 1; fi
- $(PERL) $(XSUBPPDIR)/ExtUtils/xsubpp -typemap
$(perl_privlibexp)/ExtUtils/typemap $< >$@
Doing coverage on plperl with this patch applied, those do not seem
necessary. But I don't know enough this code to give a clear opinion.

Running coverage-html with all the patches, I am seeing the following
warnings with a fresh build on my macos laptop 10.11:
geninfo: WARNING: gcov did not create any files for
/Users/mpaquier/git/postgres/src/backend/access/transam/rmgr.gcda!
I don't think that this is normal.
--
Michael