Yes: See the PR linked in the issue: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4447/files Simply replace '\-lp'; by '\-lpbc'; Side note on branch coverage: I think it was coveralls who first supported "partial" coverage. That is a line, where not all branches are covered. You can configure, which types of such partials are counted as "hit" or "miss". Doing that I quickly found the branch coverage in C++ is incredibly hard. Even for non-optimized debug builds the compiler will add branches where you won't expect them and you have no clue in how to get them covered. This is much easier for scripting languages. @James What is the current state on that? Did you test this extensively? Did you also encounter such spurious branch misses? If not and the state is the same as like 2 years ago, then branch coverage as a metric is not really useful in C++, as you have many false negatives. Note: I'm not talking about branch coverage in general, just that it is (was?) to unreliable in C++. You can't achieve 100% (not that you really should) due to the compiler. Alex Grund Am 13.07.2018 um 17:12 schrieb Hans Dembinski via Boost:

Dear James,

...

On 13. Jul 2018, at 16:45, James E. King III via Boost wrote:

In short, don't rely on line coverage for your quality measurements. Always rely on branch coverage. I generally see the wisdom in your argument.

I use coveralls.io to display and track coverage. On Travis, I execute:

pip install --user cpp-coveralls coveralls -r .. -b . --verbose --exclude ${TRAVIS_BUILD_DIR}/deps --gcov=`which ${GCOV}` --gcov-options '\-lp';

Seems like coveralls may have added tracking of branch coverage in 2017 for some languages, https://github.com/lemurheavy/coveralls-public/issues/31 https://github.com/lemurheavy/coveralls-public/issues/31 but I can't see it for my project. The situation is not clear.

Do I have to migrate to codecov.io http://codecov.io/ to follow your advice? Has anyone been able to get branch coverage working with coveralls?

Best regards, Hans