From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <chastain@cygnus.com>
To: chastain@cygnus.com, fnasser@redhat.com
Cc: ac131313@cygnus.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, keiths@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] Assuming malloc exists in callfwmall.exp
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:06:00 -0000
Message-id: <200102151506.HAA16988@bosch.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00249.html

Hi Fernando,

> Unless the HP dependent code is capable of doing this, them we move it
> to gdb.hp with only the tests that are related to malloc() --

I can take care of this case.  If you look at valops.c, you can see that
there is no special code for hpux or any other target.  There is just one
implementation of value_allocate_space_in_inferior, and it always uses
"malloc".

I agree, if some target has special code, then it needs tests to
exercise the special code.

> But the reason we know that these tests will work without malloc() is
> because they independ on malloc().

So, suppose that next month someone changes call_function_by_hand so
that it always calls value_allocate_space_in_inferior.  callfuncs.exp
will not complain at all, but callfwmall.exp will raise a bunch of
FAILs.

That's what the test is for.  It tests that gdb can do "call foo(10)"
in a program that does not use malloc.  callfuncs.exp cannot test that.

> As there are no such targets I propose we get rid of callfwmall.exp.  I
> never liked the spelling anyway -- it is unpronounceable.

I'm not strongly attached to it.  It's OK with me if you kill it.

Michael