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

Michael Snyder
2001-02-14T14:33:00Z

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.