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 08:30:00 -0000
Message-id: <200102151630.IAA22826@bosch.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00255.html

Hi Fernando,

> Both Kevin and I are now proposing a minimal test for #4

Oops, I missed that in my recapitulation.  Yes, you are.

To be correct, that test should accept either "$1 = 3" or
"error: evalation ... requires ... "malloc"".

> (#3 does not depend on malloc() so it is already tested in callfuncs).

No.  Look at use case #3:

  Use case #3:

    . malloc is not available
    . the user types: call abs(-10)
    . gdb expected response: "$1 = 10"

callfuncs.c contains an explicit call to malloc.  Therefore, callfuncs.exp
does not check use case #3.  It checks use case #1.

Michael