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

Elena Zannoni
2001-02-14T13:28:00Z

Kevin Buettner writes:
> On Feb 14, 12:51pm, Michael Snyder wrote:
>
> > Fernando Nasser wrote:
> > >
> > > Sounds reasonable. Check it in (assuming you have already added yourself to the write after approval list).
> >
> > Hold on -- aren't you defeating the purpose of this test?
> > The test was added by HP precisely because these calls
> > fail when malloc isn't included in the target program.
> > The test is a duplicate of callfuncs.exp, except that it
> > doesn't link malloc.
>
> I sort of agree with Michael. (I almost posted a similar remark.)
>

Yes, in callfwmall.c there is this comment:
/* Support program for testing gdb's ability to call functions
in an inferior which doesn't itself call malloc, pass appropriate
arguments to those functions, and get the returned result. */

> 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.

>
> If there are some, or if this is a feature that we expect to work (in
> the fullness of time), then perhaps the FAILing tests ought to be
> XFAIL'd. Otherwise, I think Keith's patch is reasonable.
>

Maybe this file should be moved to the gdb.hp directory. But I think
there must have been a reason for which it wasn't put there in the
first place. So I would think it used to pass at some point.
I don't see anything interesting in the ChangeLog.

> Kevin
>

Elena