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 cygnus 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 12:08:25 -0800
- Cc: ac131313 at cygnus dot com, fnasser at redhat dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, keiths at cygnus dot com
> Aren't we trying to be a little bit too pro-active here? We are missing
> tests for things that are already in the code. Adding tests for things
> that may or may not be in the code is somewhat new.
That's not pro-active. callfwmall.exp already exists. I'm explaining
what it tests, and why callfunc.exp does not test that.
> And if he/she is a really good maintainer he/she will reject your patch
> as it would be adding a restriction to inferior function calls that we
> do not currently have.
How do you know whether calling an inferior function uses malloc or not?
You know because callfwmall.exp tests it.
Michael