| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>, 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: | 2025-10-22 15:51:46 |
| Message-ID: | 795389.1761148306@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> (I don't know the answer to this question, but I will note that clang
> (15.0.7) does not seem to make this mistake on my machine, and reports
> a call count of zero for the `return` on line 1495. Looking at the
> disassembly, it seems to add more instrumentation points than what Tom
> showed for gcc.)
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-10-22 16:12:08 | Re: Confine vacuum skip logic to lazy_scan_skip |
| Previous Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2025-10-22 15:49:43 | Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY bug: VACUUM sets frozenxid past a xid in async queue |