Re: [RFA]: Fix gdb.base/callfwmall.exp for platforms without malloc

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@cygnus.com>]

Keith Seitz wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 21 May 2001, Michael Snyder wrote:
> 
> > No -- but perhaps we could approve a patch that would cause this
> > test to be skipped (or xfailed) for targets in which we know it
> > cannot pass.
> 
> Somewhere I am sitting on patches to change the behavior of this to XFAIL
> if malloc does not exist. It does not rely on a particular config
> variable. Instead, it queries gdb if malloc exists in the symbol table.
> 
> Would this be better? (Didn't we have this discussion a little while ago?
> Deja vu?)

Yes it did, and no that would not be better.  ;-)
The idea of the test is to confirm that GDB can pass the test 
even if there is no malloc.  I know this is counter-intuitive, 
because we are all used to the idea that gdb can NOT pass this
test if there is no malloc -- but apparently there are some 
targets (at least one) on which it can.