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

[Michael Snyder <msnyder at cygnus dot com>]

Kevin Buettner wrote:
> 
> 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()?

I would assume that the tests pass on HPUX, else HP would not
have added them.  But I don't know if they bothered to ascertain
whether the tests could be made to pass on any other platform.