Re: [HACKERS] coverage analysis improvements

2017-10-16 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/27/17 01:52, Michael Paquier wrote: > I am marking the full set of patches as ready for committer. All these patches have now been committed. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] coverage analysis improvements

2017-09-27 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Except for the plperl patch, I don't have more comments to offer about > this patch set. It would be nice to make configure a bit smarter for > lcov and gcov detection by not hard-failing if gcov can be found but

Re: [HACKERS] coverage analysis improvements

2017-09-26 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Apparently, rmgr.c doesn't contain any instrumentable code. I don't see > this warning, but it might depend on tool versions and compiler options. Even on HEAD I am seeing the same problem, this is not

Re: [HACKERS] coverage analysis improvements

2017-09-22 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/21/17 03:42, Michael Paquier wrote: > -SPI.c: SPI.xs plperl_helpers.h > +%.c: %.xs > @if [ x"$(perl_privlibexp)" = x"" ]; then echo "configure switch > --with-perl was not specified."; exit 1; fi > - $(PERL) $(XSUBPPDIR)/ExtUtils/xsubpp -typemap > $(perl_privlibexp)/ExtUtils/typemap $<

Re: [HACKERS] coverage analysis improvements

2017-09-21 Thread Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 9/20/17 13:13, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote: >> I have no opinion on the bulk of this patch set, but skimming it out of >> curiosity I noticed that the plperl change seems to have lost the >> dependency on plperl_helpers.h from

Re: [HACKERS] coverage analysis improvements

2017-09-21 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > OK, I was not aware that people are using it that way. At least one. > So updated patch > set there, which separates coverage and coverage-html into two > independent targets. Thanks for the new

Re: [HACKERS] coverage analysis improvements

2017-09-20 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/20/17 13:13, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote: > I have no opinion on the bulk of this patch set, but skimming it out of > curiosity I noticed that the plperl change seems to have lost the > dependency on plperl_helpers.h from the xsubpp targets: Those commands don't actually require

Re: [HACKERS] coverage analysis improvements

2017-09-20 Thread Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
Hi Peter, Peter Eisentraut writes: > OK, I was not aware that people are using it that way. So updated patch > set there, which separates coverage and coverage-html into two > independent targets. I have no opinion on the bulk of this patch set, but skimming

Re: [HACKERS] coverage analysis improvements

2017-09-20 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 8/24/17 04:12, Michael Paquier wrote: > Patch 0001 removes the .gcov files, which offer a text representation > of the coverage. Sometimes I use that with a terminal... Not sure for > the others, but that's my status on the matter. This also removes the > target coverage. Please note that on

Re: [HACKERS] coverage analysis improvements

2017-08-24 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 8/21/17 01:23, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Patch 0001 fails to apply as of c629324. > > Updated patches attached. > >> Which versions of lcov and gcov did you use for your tests? > > LCOV version 1.13,

Re: [HACKERS] coverage analysis improvements

2017-08-22 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 8/21/17 01:23, Michael Paquier wrote: > Patch 0001 fails to apply as of c629324. Updated patches attached. > Which versions of lcov and gcov did you use for your tests? LCOV version 1.13, and gcc-7 and gcc-6 -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL

Re: [HACKERS] coverage analysis improvements

2017-08-20 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Here is a patch series with some significant reworking and adjusting of > how the coverage analysis tools are run. The result should be that the > "make coverage" runs are faster and more robust, the

[HACKERS] coverage analysis improvements

2017-08-10 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Here is a patch series with some significant reworking and adjusting of how the coverage analysis tools are run. The result should be that the "make coverage" runs are faster and more robust, the results are more accurate, and the code is simpler. Please see the individual patches for details.