Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> 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?
Well, that's probably an overly strong conclusion; if lcov were broken
in general, people would've noticed before now. I have a question in
to the lcov mailing list at sourceforge to see if anyone wants to offer
a more informed opinion, though.
In the short term it seems clear that we'd better turn off
lcov_branch_coverage at coverage.postgresql.org, as I see you've
already done.
regards, tom lane
