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

[Kevin Buettner <kevinb at cygnus dot com>]

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.)

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()?

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.

Kevin