Willy, can you please apply patch from Tim (below) ? пт, 4 февр. 2022 г. в 03:06, Tim Düsterhus <t...@bastelstu.be>:
> Hugo, > > On 1/25/22 13:13, Hugo Lefeuvre wrote: > > We are wondering if this is caused by our measurement approach (gcov, > > passing -fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage in the CFLAGS and -lgcov to > > LDFLAGS), or if this is known to the HAProxy community. We reproduced > these > > measurements across several recent versions of HAProxy, dev, 2.5, and > 2.4. > > Yes, I believe your measurement is flawed. I tried to reproduce the > results myself and was confused by seeing uri_normalizer.c not being > covered when it should be completely covered, except for error paths by > this test: > > > https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/blob/master/reg-tests/http-rules/normalize_uri.vtc > > Cleaning out all the coverage files and just running that specific test > using: > > vtest -k -t 1 reg-tests/http-rules/normalize_uri.vtc > > did not generate any new coverage files! > > Digging into it, this appears to be caused by VTest terminating HAProxy > with a SIGINT, but HAProxy not binding an explicit SIGINT handler. In > this case it appears that no coverage files are generated. > > To test this further I applied the following patch to exit as cleanly as > possible on SIGINT: > > > diff --git i/src/haproxy.c w/src/haproxy.c > > index f10af5eae..38614a0cb 100644 > > --- i/src/haproxy.c > > +++ w/src/haproxy.c > > @@ -790,6 +790,13 @@ void mworker_reload() > > mworker_reexec(); > > } > > > > +void die_on_sigint(struct sig_handler *sh) > > +{ > > + int sig = sh->arg; > > + > > + deinit_and_exit(0); > > +} > > + > > static void mworker_loop() > > { > > > > @@ -3424,6 +3431,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) > > /* when multithreading we need to let only the thread 0 handle > the signals */ > > haproxy_unblock_signals(); > > > > + > > + signal_register_fct(SIGINT, die_on_sigint, SIGINT); > > + > > + > > /* Finally, start the poll loop for the first thread */ > > run_thread_poll_loop(&ha_thread_info[0]); > > and then reran the test suite. A few tests failed (this might be because > my patch inserted the deinit in the wrong location), but the coverage > looks much better: > > I'm getting ~44% line and ~55% function coverage when compiling with > > $ make -j4 all TARGET=linux-glibc V=1 > > uri_normalizer.c gets to 100% function and 85.4% line coverage. The > non-covered lines are the error handling (incidentally the call to > 'my_unreachable()' also is marked as uncovered - which is expected). > > Best regards > Tim Düsterhus > >
