From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Cc: PostgreSQL WWW <pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Bogus reports from coverage.postgresql.org
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:45:04 -0400
Message-ID: <16248.1521060304@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180314200240.t2un5u2eybudldtv@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20180314200240.t2un5u2eybudldtv@alvherre.pgsql>
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> 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?
Well, that's probably an overly strong conclusion; if lcov were broken
in general, people would've noticed before now. I have a question in
to the lcov mailing list at sourceforge to see if anyone wants to offer
a more informed opinion, though.
In the short term it seems clear that we'd better turn off
lcov_branch_coverage at coverage.postgresql.org, as I see you've
already done.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-www@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, sfrost@snowman.net, magnus@hagander.net, pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Bogus reports from coverage.postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <16248.1521060304@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox