GDB/MI Output syntax
Bob Rossi
bob@brasko.net
Tue Aug 24 20:01:00 GMT 2004
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:46:52PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>-@code{@var{async-record} | @var{stream-record}}
> >>>+@code{( @var{async-record} | @var{stream-record} ) @var{nl}}
> >
> >
> >I'm dubious about this.
> >
> >stream-record does not have an NL terminator and needs one, yes.
> >
> >But async-record already gets an NL terminator in the grammar
> >and does not need a second one.
>
> That's kind of why, per my earlier post, I suggested moving all the
> @var{nl} to the @var{output} production. That way we can see exactly
> where they fit in.
Andrew, were you suggesting something like this?
from
output ==> ( out-of-band-record )* [ result-record ] "(gdb)" nl
to
output ==> (out-of-band-record nl)* [ result-record nl] "(gdb)" nl
and removing the 'nl' everywhere else?
That might actually work. Although, I don't personally know a way of
changing a grammar and guaranteeing that there the same.
Bob Rossi
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list