From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michelle Caisse <Michelle(dot)Caisse(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
Cc: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: code coverage patch |
Date: | 2008-09-04 21:20:45 |
Message-ID: | 20080904212045.GD5786@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | 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.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-09-04 22:22:23 | Re: Verbosity of Function Return Type Checks |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-09-04 21:15:54 | Re: Prototype: In-place upgrade |