This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA]: Fix gdb.base/callfwmall.exp for platforms without malloc
Hi!
Michael Snyder a écrit :
>
> Keith Seitz wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 21 May 2001, Michael Snyder wrote:
> >
> > > No -- but perhaps we could approve a patch that would cause this
> > > test to be skipped (or xfailed) for targets in which we know it
> > > cannot pass.
> >
> > Somewhere I am sitting on patches to change the behavior of this to XFAIL
> > if malloc does not exist. It does not rely on a particular config
> > variable. Instead, it queries gdb if malloc exists in the symbol table.
> >
> > Would this be better? (Didn't we have this discussion a little while ago?
> > Deja vu?)
>
> Yes it did, and no that would not be better. ;-)
> The idea of the test is to confirm that GDB can pass the test
> even if there is no malloc. I know this is counter-intuitive,
> because we are all used to the idea that gdb can NOT pass this
> test if there is no malloc -- but apparently there are some
> targets (at least one) on which it can.
Hum... if I understand, the only good fix is to fix GDB so that it no longer
calls 'malloc'. I would be very happy to see that fix in GDB. You cannot rely
on a possible 'malloc'. I have two examples in mind here: 68HC11 programs
and... ChorusOS kernel.
Do you have any patch or are you working on any fix so that GDB does not call
'malloc' any more?
For example, by allocating the string on the stack, as it does for the arguments.
Ok, it's more complex; you'll need a two-pass argument processing, one for
string allocation, and one to really push the arguments.
Stephane
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Home Office
E-mail: stcarrez@worldnet.fr Stephane.Carrez@sun.com
WWW: http://home.worldnet.fr/stcarrez http://www.sun.com
Mail: 17, rue Foucher Lepelletier 6, avenue Gustave Eiffel
92130 Issy Les Moulineaux 78182 Saint Quentin en Yvelines
France