From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain To: chastain@cygnus.com, fnasser@cygnus.com Cc: ac131313@cygnus.com, fnasser@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, keiths@cygnus.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Assuming malloc exists in callfwmall.exp Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:08:00 -0000 Message-id: <200102152008.MAA27020@bosch.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00262.html > Aren't we trying to be a little bit too pro-active here? We are missing > tests for things that are already in the code. Adding tests for things > that may or may not be in the code is somewhat new. That's not pro-active. callfwmall.exp already exists. I'm explaining what it tests, and why callfunc.exp does not test that. > And if he/she is a really good maintainer he/she will reject your patch > as it would be adding a restriction to inferior function calls that we > do not currently have. How do you know whether calling an inferior function uses malloc or not? You know because callfwmall.exp tests it. Michael