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

[Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com>]

Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> 
> If malloc is not present, the script proceeds to test a bunch of things
> that we believe should work.  It does not test things that we know,
> by design, don't work.
> 

But the reason we know that these tests will work without malloc() is
because they independ on malloc().

Thus, they have already been tested in callfuncs.exp (doesn't matter
that the inferior had an malloc -- these things do not use it at all)
and this whole callfwmall.exp is just useless.


I am now lead to believe that these tests would only be useful for
targets that have an alternative way to deal with string arguments when
malloc() is not available in the inferior.

As there are no such targets I propose we get rid of callfwmall.exp.  I
never liked the spelling anyway -- it is unpronounceable.

Unless the HP dependent code is capable of doing this, them we move it
to gdb.hp with only the tests that are related to malloc() -- the other
are just repetition of callfuncs.exp in any case you may think of.



-- 
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd.                     E-Mail:  fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9