From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@cygnus.com>
To: Stan Shebs <shebs@apple.com>
Cc: Fernando Nasser <fnasser@cygnus.com>, Keith Seitz <keiths@cygnus.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] Assuming malloc exists in callfwmall.exp
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:35:00 -0000
Message-id: <3A8B0830.3299E33D@cygnus.com>
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.1010214082014.13194C-100000@ryobi.cygnus.com> <3A8ABA01.C25B0FD2@cygnus.com> <3A8AEFEA.A2E2A61E@cygnus.com> <3A8AF68A.9B2CF558@cygnus.com> <3A8AFA2B.605F177D@apple.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00232.html

Stan Shebs wrote:
> 
> Fernando Nasser wrote:
> >
> > But how is it possible that GDB needs malloc() when the target does not have it?
> 
> (gdb) p strlen("foobar")
> 
> The string itself needs to be in the target's memory, so you can give
> the function a pointer to it.  malloc() is a convenient default way
> to acquire the space, then GDB copies in the string's contents.

That's exactly why the source code for the test (callfuncs)
has a superfluous call to malloc, and exactly why this test
(callfwmall) removes the superfluous malloc call.

By the way, the name "callfwmall" stands for
"callfuncs without malloc".

Michael