Re: [RFC] remove set_tfile_traceframe and cur_traceframe_number

[Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>]

On 07/23/2012 05:07 PM, Yao Qi wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 09:47:55 PM Yao Qi wrote:
>> I can't see the necessity to use function set_tfile_traceframe and
>> variable cur_traceframe_number.  IIUC, both set_tfile_traceframe
>> and cur_traceframe_number are equivalent to remote.c:set_remote_traceframe
>> and remote.c:remote_traceframe_number.  set_remote_traceframe
>> and remote_traceframe_number are used to switch between traceframe
>> and live inferior in a lazy mode.  However, this requirement doesn't
>> exists in tfile, because GDB only reads from trace file.  This is
>> the reason I propose to remove them.  Regression tested on native
>> and gdbserver on x86_64-linux.  OK to apply?
> 
> The code this patch tries to remove was added by Pedro in this patch,
> 
>   [unavailable values part 1, 05/17] move traceframe memory reading fallback 
> to read-only sections to GDB side
>   http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-02/msg00136.html
> 
> in order to make GDB to read read-only memory from the live target.  Pedro's 
> patch did something similar to both remote target and tfile target.  It makes 
> sense to remote target, because there is a live inferior that GDB can access.  
> However, it is not necessary for tfile target, because there is no live 
> inferior at all.  IMO, it is correct to remove them in this patch.

Sorry for the delay.  I'll take a look at this very soon.  (ping me in a couple
days if you don't hear back).

-- 
Pedro Alves