Re: Question for coverage report - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Álvaro Herrera
Subject Re: Question for coverage report
Date
Msg-id 202510221625.onllph6hzvqf@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Question for coverage report  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2025-Oct-22, Tom Lane wrote:

> 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.

Maybe we should give up on GCC and use clang for the coverage report?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"La gente vulgar sólo piensa en pasar el tiempo;
el que tiene talento, en aprovecharlo"



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: issue with synchronized_standby_slots
Next
From: Tatsuo Ishii
Date:
Subject: Re: C11: should we use char32_t for unicode code points?