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

[Michael Snyder <msnyder at cygnus dot com>]

Elena Zannoni wrote:
> 
> 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.

There was no gdb.hp directory at the time.