From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <chastain@cygnus.com>
To: chastain@cygnus.com, ezannoni@cygnus.com, kevinb@cygnus.com
Cc: fnasser@cygnus.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, keiths@cygnus.com, msnyder@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] Assuming malloc exists in callfwmall.exp
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:12:00 -0000
Message-id: <200102142312.PAA30027@bosch.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00235.html

Kevin Buettner writes:

> I think the present behavior is acceptable.  It looks for malloc()
> anyway to see if it has snuck in via some other means; if it can't
> find it, it prints out a message to that effect.

OK with me.  I've never actually seen that message, but the code
in "fund_function_in_inferior" throws an error if the symbol is
not found:

  evaluation of this expression requires the program to have a function \"%s\".

Keith, are you getting these in your gdb.log?

> So...  what should become of callfwmall.exp?  As I recall, this test
> is identical to another test (callfuncs.exp) except that it simply
> lacks a call to malloc(), right?

Let me bust a diff:

  1c1
  < Running /vittone/fsf/2001-02-13/source-src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/callfuncs.exp ...
  ---
  > Running /vittone/fsf/2001-02-13/source-src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/callfwmall.exp ...
  7d6
  < PASS: next
  57d55
  < PASS: p t_call_add(add,3,4)
  58a57
  > PASS: p t_call_add(add,3,4)
  70d68
  < PASS: p cmp10 (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
  78,86d75
  < PASS: gdb function calls preserve register contents
  < PASS: continue from call dummy breakpoint
  < PASS: bt after continuing from call dummy breakpoint
  < PASS: continue after stop in call dummy preserves register contents
  < PASS: finish from call dummy breakpoint returns correct value
  < PASS: bt after finishing from call dummy breakpoint
  < PASS: finish after stop in call dummy preserves register contents
  < PASS: back at main after return from call dummy breakpoint
  < PASS: return after stop in call dummy preserves register contents

Looks pretty subsetty to me.  Most of the differences are additions
to callfuncs.exp after callfwmall.exp was forked.

Somewhere we do need one test that builds an executable that does
not have malloc and then calls a function with implicit allocation --
to check that the error mechanism works properly.

> If that's the case, I think callfwmall.exp ought to go away.

I'm willing to file such a bug report.  Any objections?

Michael