From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fernando Nasser To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: ac131313@cygnus.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, keiths@cygnus.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Assuming malloc exists in callfwmall.exp Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:09:00 -0000 Message-id: <3A8BFE82.41FE8B81@redhat.com> References: <200102151553.HAA17146@bosch.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00254.html Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > > Fernando's proposal is to remove coverage of #3 and #4. > You may have missed some messages from me and Kevin. Both Kevin and I are now proposing a minimal test for #4 (#3 does not depend on malloc() so it is already tested in callfuncs). It would consist of your test for the presence of malloc() and, if it indeed is not there, a *single* test for the error message. Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > > Hi Fernando, > > > The other case to be tested is when there isn't a malloc() available at > > all (that is why the test Keith and you proposed is so nice). But the > > FAILs are wrong. Not having malloc() available is not GDB's fault and > > it may be just a limitation of the target environment. > > I think there are four use cases. > > Use case #1: > > . malloc is available > . the user types: call abs(-10) > . gdb expected response: "$1 = 10" > > Use case #2: > > . malloc is available > . the user types: call strlen("foo") > . gdb expected response: "$1 = 3" > > Use case #3: > > . malloc is not available > . the user types: call abs(-10) > . gdb expected response: "$1 = 10" > > Use case #4: > > . malloc is not available > . the user types: call strlen("foo") > . gdb expected responses: either one of > . "$1 = 3" > . error: evaluation of this expression requires the program to have a function "malloc" > > callfuncs.exp tests #1 and #2. > callfuncs.exp can never test #3 or #4. > > callfwmall.exp, as written, tests use case #3 (on some platforms). > > callfwmall.exp, as written, has an incorrect test for #4. It accepts only > the first response, but gdb can produce either response, and the current > gdb produces the second response. > > Keith's patch removes use case #4 from the test coverage. > > Michael's patch makes callfwmall.exp verify that it gdb+inferior is in the > regime of #3 and #4. If gdb+inferior is not, then callfwmall.exp returns > UNTESTED. If gdb+inferior is in that regime (inferior has no malloc), > then it tests #3 only. I could make it test #4 properly by adding more RE's. > > Fernando's proposal is to remove coverage of #3 and #4. > > Kevin's evidence is that Linux native, and probably every glibc platform, > never enters the regime of #3 and #4 anyways. > > Michael -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9