This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Assuming malloc exists in callfwmall.exp
- To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <chastain at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Assuming malloc exists in callfwmall.exp
- From: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:21:42 -0800
- CC: jimb at cygnus dot com, ac131313 at cygnus dot com, fnasser at redhat dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, keiths at cygnus dot com
- References: <200102161641.IAA23848@bosch.cygnus.com>
Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
>
> I was going to drop this, but ...
>
> > This is irrelevant. The GDB test suite exists to verify that GDB
> > behaves as documented. If a test checks for behavior which is not
> > guaranteed, the test is in error, and should simply be removed.
>
> callfwmalls.exp checks that "call foo(10)" works in a target program
> that does not call malloc. That check is useful.
No, the check is not useful. "call foo(10)" has nothing
to do with malloc. The dependence of call foo("bar") on
malloc is documented, and does not imply a dependence of
call foo(10) on malloc. This is a nit.
>
> It also checks that "call foo("bar")" works in a target program that
> does not call malloc. That check is useless.
Um -- Michael, did you get those two mixed up?