Re: Bogus reports from coverage.postgresql.org

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL WWW <pgsql-www(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bogus reports from coverage.postgresql.org
Date: 2018-03-13 17:45:10
Message-ID: 26015.1520963110@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-www

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> Running gcov on the box itself in the source dir shows the same results
> which you got:

Oh really!

> Which seems to indicate that this actually is some kind of lcov bug.

Yeah. I'd written that off as too low-probability to worry about,
but maybe not. I'll poke further. Peter, which lcov did you test?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-www by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-03-13 20:30:51 Re: Bogus reports from coverage.postgresql.org
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2018-03-13 17:01:05 Re: Bogus reports from coverage.postgresql.org