[RFA] Assuming malloc exists in callfwmall.exp

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

> 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