Re: Bogus reports from coverage.postgresql.org
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Bogus reports from coverage.postgresql.org |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20180314200240.t2un5u2eybudldtv@alvherre.pgsql обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Bogus reports from coverage.postgresql.org (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Bogus reports from coverage.postgresql.org
|
Список | pgsql-www |
Tom Lane wrote: > Well, this is darn interesting. I got the Fedora lcov maintainer > to push an update absorbing the upstream "gcc 8" fixes. (Turned > out he'd already done that for rawhide, but forgot to push it into > the F28 branch.) And with that, and gcc 8.0.1, ... no bug. The > lines are marked "lineNoCov" with or without lcov_branch_coverage. 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? While we're on this topic ... Some time ago, I looked into whether it would be possible to make the coverage report ignore the elog(ERROR) lines, which are --or should be-- unreachable code and thus we don't care too much about test coverage. Finding no way to implement that, I gave up (I tried adding exclusion markers in the elog definition, as documented in geninfo. Perhaps I did it wrong). But maybe it is possible with these recent improvements? -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-www по дате отправления: