From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
cc: Narek Galstyan <narek.galstyan@enterprisedb.com>,
        pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
        "narekg@berkeley.edu" <narekg@berkeley.edu>, ngalstyan4@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Coverage with make coverage-html is broken on latest Debian using
 lcov v2
In-reply-to: <ajBA9Zuy3TZ73mxr@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <ajBA9Zuy3TZ73mxr@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
	message dated "Mon, 15 Jun 2026 20:22:45 +0200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <77253.1791045569.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2026 12:39:29 -0400
Message-ID: <77254.1791045569@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/77254.1791045569%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

[ This thread went quiet, but you reminded me of it in answering
Pierre Forstmann's nearby question ]

=?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> writes:
> Handling this part with your 0001 seems reasonable to me.  I think we
> should backpatch that one.

Agreed, and it doesn't look like that got done, so I'll go do it now.

> I'm not sure sure about the 0002 patch though.  It builds in the
> assumption that lcov is broken and that we're going to ignore these
> warnings by default [forever].  Do we really want to bake those flags
> into our build system?

That bothers me too, mainly because I foresee a risk of the switches
hiding genuine problems somewhere down the road.  Also the switches
Narek proposes don't match what I've found to be necessary on my
own installation (so maybe there is a gcov version dependency here
too?).

For the moment I'm content to insert the --ignore-errors flags
manually.  The 0001 patch should at least reduce the noise level
a bit.

			regards, tom lane