From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16164 invoked by alias); 4 May 2008 17:14:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 16154 invoked by uid 22791); 4 May 2008 17:14:52 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 04 May 2008 17:14:32 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 170BC983F0; Sun, 4 May 2008 17:14:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032DB9829E; Sun, 4 May 2008 17:14:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JshnC-0007zM-F4; Sun, 04 May 2008 13:14:30 -0400 Date: Sun, 04 May 2008 17:29:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Fix MI/async testsuite Message-ID: <20080504171430.GA18323@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200805041618.14962.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20080504163321.GA17507@caradoc.them.org> <200805042048.21287.vladimir@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200805042048.21287.vladimir@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-05/txt/msg00176.txt.bz2 On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 08:48:20PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Guess this is because I did not update the grammar per earliner discussion. > We should have RESULT-RECORD, OUT-OF-BAND-RECORD and PROMPT be independent, > and allowed to appear in any order. > > > =thread-created after *running makes lots of sense. =thread-created > > after ^running is a little weird to me. If ^running is the response > > to a command it ought to be followed by a prompt. > > Per current grammar, yes. In principle, no -- prompt indicates that gdb > is ready to accept further input, and should be printed, naturally, when > gdb is ready to accept more input -- which is not necessary right after > printing "^running". Why should we print ^running before we are ready for more input? *running, yes, soon as the target starts running. But ^running is the result of the command and should show up when the command is done, shouldn't it? In other words, the current version: `OUTPUT ==>' `( OUT-OF-BAND-RECORD )* [ RESULT-RECORD ] "(gdb)" NL' `RESULT-RECORD ==>' ` [ TOKEN ] "^" RESULT-CLASS ( "," RESULT )* NL' Changed to this: `OUTPUT ==>' `OUT-OF-BAND-RECORD | RESULT-RECORD' `RESULT-RECORD ==>' ` [ TOKEN ] "^" RESULT-CLASS ( "," RESULT )* NL "(gdb)" NL' -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery