From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-35436-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 32285 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2004 19:54:53 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 32264 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2004 19:54:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao11.cox.net) (68.230.240.28)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 24 Aug 2004 19:54:51 -0000
Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao11.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02.01 201-2131-111-104-103-20040709)
          with ESMTP
          id <20040824195358.WVET6461.lakermmtao11.cox.net@white>;
          Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:53:58 -0400
Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1BzhMe-0004hW-00; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:53:52 -0400
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 19:54:00 -0000
From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
Cc: Michael Chastain <mec.gnu@mindspring.com>,
	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: GDB/MI Output syntax
Message-ID: <20040824195351.GE17865@white>
Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>,
	Michael Chastain <mec.gnu@mindspring.com>,
	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
References: <20040824191931.GC17542@white> <412B980A.nailFLQ1QDS6L@mindspring.com> <412B9B2C.3080302@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <412B9B2C.3080302@gnu.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00667.txt.bz2

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.

I don't think it would be possible to move all of the @var{nl} to the
output production. Not without making the output production very large.
This is because in several case's the newline is only outputted
conditionally, since some productions are optional.

I think the simple patch would be fine for now. Do you agree?

Thanks,
Bob Rossi