Open mykaul opened 2 years ago
Given that we use Centos Stream 8 for the coverage, that would requires a specific backport of the package. That's doable for something critical, but I am not keen on adding the maintenance of a specific package for that.
However, I guess we can do a test run to see if that fix the issue, do you have a link to the build giving odd results (and a bit more information on those odd results ?
I see numbers I can't explain - code B that comes after A has more 'hits', or there are missing 'hits'. Random example:
233 5337465360 : ret = per_dentry_fn(dentry, data);
234 5337465359 : if (ret) {
Where's one missing hit? What happened?
Another one:
247 13401367424 : list_for_each_entry(each, &parent->dentry_list, inode_list)
248 : {
249 5337458353 : ret = __foreach_ancestor_dentry(each, per_dentry_fn, data);
250 8063902065 : if (ret)
How is line 250 getting so many more hits than 249?
Could be some compiler optimizations of course, macro expansion, etc. :-/
We are using 1.14, which sometimes seem to give some odd results. Either it's an optimization I don't fully understand or some of the numbers make little sense. 1.15 is available - https://github.com/linux-test-project/lcov/releases/tag/v1.15 - it'd be great if we can upgrade to it.