Re: [RFA] Assuming malloc exists in callfwmall.exp

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at cygnus dot com>]

Kevin Buettner writes:
 > On Feb 14, 12:51pm, Michael Snyder wrote:
 > 
 > > Fernando Nasser wrote:
 > > > 
 > > > Sounds reasonable.  Check it in (assuming you have already added yourself to the write after approval list).
 > > 
 > > Hold on -- aren't you defeating the purpose of this test?
 > > The test was added by HP precisely because these calls
 > > fail when malloc isn't included in the target program.
 > > The test is a duplicate of callfuncs.exp, except that it
 > > doesn't link malloc.
 > 
 > I sort of agree with Michael.  (I almost posted a similar remark.)
 > 

Yes, in callfwmall.c there is this comment:
/* Support program for testing gdb's ability to call functions
   in an inferior which doesn't itself call malloc, pass appropriate
   arguments to those functions, and get the returned result. */


 > OTOH, given that GDB's mechanism for performing these tests is to
 > use malloc(), I'm not sure how these are supposed to succeed.  (As
 > someone else pointed out, they do succeed on some platforms because
 > malloc() sneaks into the picture through the dynamic loader.)
 > 
 > Does anyone know of any host/target combinations which manage to pass
 > these tests without using malloc()?

HPUX should pass. That's why those tests were added in the first
place, I think.

 > 
 > If there are some, or if this is a feature that we expect to work (in
 > the fullness of time), then perhaps the FAILing tests ought to be
 > XFAIL'd.  Otherwise, I think Keith's patch is reasonable.
 > 

Maybe this file should be moved to the gdb.hp directory. But I think
there must have been a reason for which it wasn't put there in the
first place. So I would think it used to pass at some point.
I don't see anything interesting in the ChangeLog.

 > Kevin
 > 

Elena