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 08:30:27 -0800
- Cc: ac131313 at cygnus dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, keiths at cygnus dot com
Hi Fernando,
> Both Kevin and I are now proposing a minimal test for #4
Oops, I missed that in my recapitulation. Yes, you are.
To be correct, that test should accept either "$1 = 3" or
"error: evalation ... requires ... "malloc"".
> (#3 does not depend on malloc() so it is already tested in callfuncs).
No. Look at use case #3:
Use case #3:
. malloc is not available
. the user types: call abs(-10)
. gdb expected response: "$1 = 10"
callfuncs.c contains an explicit call to malloc. Therefore, callfuncs.exp
does not check use case #3. It checks use case #1.
Michael