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

Elena Zannoni
2001-02-14T14:00:00Z

Kevin Buettner writes:
> On Feb 14, 4:28pm, Elena Zannoni wrote:
>
> > > OTOH, given that GDB's mechanism for performing these tests is to
> > > use malloc(), I'm not sure how these are supposed to succeed. (As
> > > someone else pointed out, they do succeed on some platforms because
> > > malloc() sneaks into the picture through the dynamic loader.)
> > >
> > > Does anyone know of any host/target combinations which manage to pass
> > > these tests without using malloc()?
> >
> > HPUX should pass. That's why those tests were added in the first
> > place, I think.
>
> Do you have any idea how this functionality is implemented?
>
> There are a number of platforms which pass these tests, but only
> because malloc() is sneaks in because it's required by the dynamic
> linker. If HPUX passes for a similar reason, this is cheating. OTOH,
> if the HPUX port uses some other mechanism entirely, it might be a
> good idea for us to adapt this mechanism so that other targets can
> use it too.
>

I think it looked up the malloc function using some hp linker specific
functions. Looking at hppa-tdep.c it seems like the code has changed,
so I am not sure anymore. But yes, I think it would fall into the
'cheating' category. Malloc is there. You just don't need to have a
call to it in the inferior.

> Kevin
>