siddharth srivastava <[email protected]> writes: > The results with the sane build seem better than the one on the site > [2]. Is it due to the > fact that insane build has debug information and other exception > related code as well > which makes the code coverage results for it numerically weaker than > the sane build ?
The reports published on the site also use sane builds. It looks like the coverage is poorer in the replication code. The replication tests spawn many processes, so I'm wondering if there might be a problem with storing the coverage data from sub-processes; sometimes causing the report generation to fail, sometimes making the report lack some data. -- Knut Anders
