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

Michael Snyder
2001-05-21T11:10:00Z

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.