GDB/MI Output syntax
Andrew Cagney
cagney@gnu.org
Tue Aug 24 20:18:00 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?
Yep.
> That might actually work. Although, I don't personally know a way of
> changing a grammar and guaranteeing that there the same.
A series of rewrites where NL is slow pushed down should eventually
result in the old grammar (well except that it would be fixed).
Andrew
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list