From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fernando Nasser To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: ac131313@cygnus.com, keiths@cygnus.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Assuming malloc exists in callfwmall.exp Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 01:06:00 -0000 Message-id: <3A8B9B62.1DE46975@redhat.com> References: <200102150327.TAA14419@bosch.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00244.html 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