| From: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Steven Niu <niushiji(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Question for coverage report |
| Date: | 2025-10-24 09:39:15 |
| Message-ID: | 202510221625.onllph6hzvqf@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2025-Oct-22, Tom Lane wrote:
> Interesting. I also realized, after re-reading the snippet I showed,
> that gcc is treating the code leading up to a CALL instruction as a
> separate basic block from the code following the CALL. So that begs
> the question of which count is shown for the function call's line
> at the source-code level. It'd only differ when the function throws
> an error, presumably.
Maybe we should give up on GCC and use clang for the coverage report?
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"La gente vulgar sólo piensa en pasar el tiempo;
el que tiene talento, en aprovecharlo"
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2025-10-24 09:43:15 | Re: C11: should we use char32_t for unicode code points? |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2025-10-24 09:38:19 | Re: issue with synchronized_standby_slots |