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

[Fernando Nasser <fnasser at redhat dot com>]

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> To the best of my knolwedge, the objective of the test is to ensure that
> GDB can still handle code like:
> 
>         print strlen ("foo")
> 
> when the target doesn't link in malloc().  Well, to be more precice, the
> target doesn't explicitly link in malloc(). GDB is forced to grub around
> in shared library information (or, gasp, the target rom) to obtain a
> malloc() function.
> 

Should we test GDB's ability to find malloc() from the shared libraries
per se?  The little test code added by Keith and revamped by Michael
could be used to do that.


> As far as I can tell, the proposed change defeats this test.  Yes, there
> are targets that really don't have malloc() and on those targets the
> test should probably xfailed.  However, on any target with a shared
> library() I think it should be allowed to run.
> 

But then it is equivalent to callfuncs.exp, which has already run.



> How many targets currently fail the test?
> 
>         Andrew

-- 
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd.                     E-Mail:  fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9