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 1ev6Fq-0003Xf-4P for pgsql-www@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 19:03:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ev6Fm-0000pS-S3 for pgsql-www@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 19:03:30 +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 1ev6Fm-0000pJ-N5 for pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 19:03:30 +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 1ev6Fh-00087w-JA for pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 19:03:29 +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 w2BJ3KfO001595; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 15:03:20 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Magnus Hagander cc: Peter Eisentraut , PostgreSQL WWW Subject: Re: Bogus reports from coverage.postgresql.org In-reply-to: <31446.1520791925@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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> Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane message dated "Sun, 11 Mar 2018 14:12:05 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1593.1520795000.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 15:03:20 -0400 Message-ID: <1594.1520795000@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk I wrote: > I'll try this on 7.3.1, since I already have that on a handy laptop. > But if it doesn't reproduce there I think the answer is going to be > that Debian is shipping an old buggy gcov. Huh. 7.3.1 shows the bug. I'll install F28 and see if it's still there. Peter, what gcc/gcov version did you test? regards, tom lane