Sebastian Pipping
Sebastian Pipping
> How hard is it to artifact/publish (whatever term you like) the 'test.log' file file generated by the `make check` target? Path appears to be `/home/runner/work/lcov/lcov/tests/test.log` (though not sure how...
> > How hard is it to artifact/publish (whatever term you like) the 'test.log' file file generated by the `make check` target? Path appears to be `/home/runner/work/lcov/lcov/tests/test.log` (though not sure...
@henry2cox I'm not aware of any easy way for browsable results. Probably a zip download will have to do.
@henry2cox I'm sure it's possible but it's not something I could offer economically at the moment.
@henry2cox glad to hear, glad I could be of help :pray:
@henry2cox our runner image offers GCC 12.3.0, 13.3.0, 14.2.0 out of the box — if we were to to use the matrix feature of GitHub Actions to cover all three...
@henry2cox maybe I should have been more explicit: I wonder about an environment with say GCC commands `gcc-12`, `gcc-13` and `gcc-14` and `gcc`. I would want the CI to say...
@henry2cox let me try a quicker hack then before we have that. Let's see if you like it…
@henry2cox I didn't expect my idea to perform so poorly (see draft #366). One side effect learning is that tests likely need auto-detect of `-fcoverage-mcdc` availability. But in particular GCC...
For anyone else reading here: #366 is more promising now.