| From: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Tom Lane' <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(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: | 2025-10-22 06:11:32 |
| Message-ID: | OSCPR01MB14966F2C1919204C0BA8C72AEF5F3A@OSCPR01MB14966.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Álvaro, Tom,
Thanks for giving some low-layer information. I understood like:
gcov does not actually count each line, counts a chunk of codes. Boundaries are
not same as code paths, before-and-after the if {} can be in the same chunk.
Per above, I could consider in pguotput.c., line 1495 was actually executed but
1503 was counted when it reached line 1494. Another question is why one of the
branch was reported as 100% and another one was 0%. Is it just because counts
was less than 1/100?
I googled some articles but could not find.
```
183433: 1494: if (!is_publishable_relation(relation))
call 0 returned 100%
branch 1 taken 100% (fallthrough)
branch 2 taken 0%
1171: 1495: return;
```
Best regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shinya Kato | 2025-10-22 06:30:28 | Re: remove unnecessary include in src/backend/commands/policy.c |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-10-22 05:51:31 | Re: Skip unregistered custom kinds on stats load |