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

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@cygnus.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1489 bytes --]

Stephane Carrez wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Michael Snyder a écrit :
> >
> > 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.
> 
> Hum... if I understand, the only good fix is to fix GDB so that it no longer
> calls 'malloc'. 

No, I think the fix is to fix the testcase so that it will be skipped
for all targets except for the few (only one that I know of) that is
capable of performing this functionality without relying on malloc.

Of course, if you WANT to undertake to fix GDB so that it does not
need to rely on malloc, please feel free.  But I do not think it will
be easy.

Michael