From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com>
To: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@cygnus.com>, Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com>
Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder@cygnus.com>, Fernando Nasser <fnasser@cygnus.com>, Keith Seitz <keiths@cygnus.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] Assuming malloc exists in callfwmall.exp
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:41:00 -0000
Message-id: <1010214214059.ZM6607@ocotillo.lan>
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.1010214082014.13194C-100000@ryobi.cygnus.com> <3A8ABA01.C25B0FD2@cygnus.com> <3A8AEFEA.A2E2A61E@cygnus.com> <1010214211043.ZM6538@ocotillo.lan> <14986.63606.73968.332165@kwikemart.cygnus.com> <ezannoni@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00226.html

On Feb 14,  4:28pm, Elena Zannoni wrote:

>  > 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.

Do you have any idea how this functionality is implemented?

There are a number of platforms which pass these tests, but only
because malloc() is sneaks in because it's required by the dynamic
linker.  If HPUX passes for a similar reason, this is cheating.  OTOH,
if the HPUX port uses some other mechanism entirely, it might be a
good idea for us to adapt this mechanism so that other targets can
use it too.

Kevin