From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Snyder To: Keith Seitz Cc: Stephane Carrez , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA]: Fix gdb.base/callfwmall.exp for platforms without malloc Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:10:00 -0000 Message-id: <3B095A01.D85C9E5D@cygnus.com> References: X-SW-Source: 2001-05/msg00394.html 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.