From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Snyder To: Kevin Buettner Cc: Fernando Nasser , Keith Seitz , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Assuming malloc exists in callfwmall.exp Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:34:00 -0000 Message-id: <3A8B07DC.B6BE7482@cygnus.com> References: <3A8ABA01.C25B0FD2@cygnus.com> <3A8AEFEA.A2E2A61E@cygnus.com> <1010214211043.ZM6538@ocotillo.lan> X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00231.html Kevin Buettner wrote: > > 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.) > > 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()? I would assume that the tests pass on HPUX, else HP would not have added them. But I don't know if they bothered to ascertain whether the tests could be made to pass on any other platform.