From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
        Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
        PostgreSQL WWW <pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Bogus reports from coverage.postgresql.org
In-reply-to: <20180314200240.t2un5u2eybudldtv@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20180314200240.t2un5u2eybudldtv@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
	message dated "Wed, 14 Mar 2018 17:02:40 -0300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <16247.1521060304.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:45:04 -0400
Message-ID: <16248.1521060304@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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