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

[Fernando Nasser <fnasser@cygnus.com>]

Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> 
> > I don't get it.  malloc is not used at all when the argument is not a
> > string.  So, what malloc() being available or not has to do with this
> > situation?
> 
> The point is that use case #3 should keep working, even if
> someone changes gdb.
> 

Aren't we trying to be a little bit too pro-active here?  We are missing tests for things that are already in the code.  Adding tests for things that may or may not be in the code is somewhat new.

> Suppose I check in a patch tomorrow to allocate the call dummy in malloc'd
> memory instead of the target's stack.
> 

Then the good maintainer in charge of that code will suggest that you should also submit a test case for that.

And if he/she is a really good maintainer he/she will reject your patch as it would be adding a restriction to inferior function calls that we do not currently have.



In any case, having *one* useless test is still better than a test file full of them.  
If you are willing to get it in the shape suggested by Kevin and I you can add the #3 if you want. But please add the following comment (or similar):
# Gdb does not currently use malloc() for inferior calls with integer arguments
# If it ever does, it will be tested in here. 

Just to check if we are in the same page: there would be 3 tests in there:
.You test for malloc presence
.A test with the string argument
.The integer argument one

The last two, as you suggested, pass on both error message and success call.


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