This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Assuming malloc exists in callfwmall.exp
- To: chastain at cygnus dot com, fnasser at redhat dot com
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Assuming malloc exists in callfwmall.exp
- From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <chastain at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:00:47 -0800
- Cc: ac131313 at cygnus dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, keiths at cygnus dot com
> I don't get it. malloc is not used at all when the argument is not a
> string. So, what malloc() being available or not has to do with this
> situation?
The point is that use case #3 should keep working, even if
someone changes gdb.
Suppose I check in a patch tomorrow to allocate the call dummy in malloc'd
memory instead of the target's stack.
Would that be a problem?
If it is a problem, what test case can catch it?
Michael