Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ev79z-0006Gc-Nf for pgsql-www@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 20:01:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ev79y-0008M6-7K for pgsql-www@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 20:01:34 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ev79y-0008Lx-2M for pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 20:01:34 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ev79u-00012W-Im for pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 20:01:33 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w2BK1QoV013149; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 16:01:26 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Eisentraut cc: Magnus Hagander , PostgreSQL WWW Subject: Re: Bogus reports from coverage.postgresql.org In-reply-to: References: <30022.1520642188@sss.pgh.pa.us> <30195.1520790475@sss.pgh.pa.us> <30669.1520791101@sss.pgh.pa.us> <31446.1520791925@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1594.1520795000@sss.pgh.pa.us> <2633.1520796277@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut message dated "Sun, 11 Mar 2018 15:52:19 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <13147.1520798486.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 16:01:26 -0400 Message-ID: <13148.1520798486@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Peter Eisentraut writes: > I tried it on Debian stable with gcc 6.3.0 and couldn't reproduce it. > cc (Debian 6.3.0-18+deb9u1) 6.3.0 20170516 Oh ... *that's* interesting. Are we sure this is the version in use on coverage.postgresql.org? Also, I just finished searching in vain for any plausibly-matching bug at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/. I did find a few reports suggesting that gcov could misbehave with nondefault build options such as LTO. And "gcov -a" has also had issues. So maybe we ought to have a look at exactly what coverage.postgresql.org's build recipe is. regards, tom lane