Re: code coverage patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: code coverage patch
Date
Msg-id 20080904212045.GD5786@alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to code coverage patch  (Michelle Caisse <Michelle.Caisse@Sun.COM>)
Responses Re: code coverage patch  (Michelle Caisse <Michelle.Caisse@Sun.COM>)
List pgsql-hackers
Michelle Caisse wrote:
> I've attached a patch that allows the generation of code coverage  
> statistics. To test it, apply the patch, then:
>
> autoconf
> ./configure --enable-coverage
> make
> make check (or execute any other application against the database to see  
> the coverage of that app)
> make coverage
> make coverage_out

"make clean" does not work for me; it doesn't remove the .gcda and .gcno
files.  Apparently the problem is that $(enable_coverage) is not
defined, so that part of common.mk is not called.

Note: one thing to keep in mind is directories like src/port.  There are
some .gcda and .gcno files in there too, but even if common.mk is fixed,
they will not be cleaned because src/port does not seem to use
common.mk.

Another thing that I'm unsure about is the coverage_out target.  It does
work, but is it running the coverage target each time it is invoked?
Because if so, it's removing all of ./coverage and creating it again ...
is this the desired behavior?

This patch is missing a installation.sgml patch, at a minimum.  I think
it would be useful to mention that we support gcov, and the make targets
we have, in some other part of the documentation.  I can't readily find
a good spot, but I think a new file to be inserted in the internals
chapter would be appropriate.

Two hunks no longer apply, but that's OK because they were working
around a problem that no longer exists.  Other than the minor gripes
above, the patch looks OK to me.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Prototype: In-place upgrade
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Verbosity of Function Return Type Checks