> Looking at your patch.
> > -@code{[ @var{token} ] "+" @var{async-output}}
> > +@code{[ @var{token} ] "+" @var{async-output}} @var{nl}
> Is it OK to put the @var{nl} inside the @code{}?

OK, thank you and Eli for pointing this out and confirming it.
Attached is the updated patch.

> Because I see some (removed) code in your patch:
> > -@code{@var{async-class} ( "," @var{result} )* @var{nl}}
> I'm not familiar with the Texinfo grammar.

I won't say that I am extremely comfortable with it, yet,
but I'm slowly getting there...

Basically, the "nl" has been moved to the varous rules that
use this rule (exec-async-output, status-async-output and
notify-async-output). The idea is, as hinted in the patch's
rev log, to keep the special symbol indicating the type of
output, and the nl, within the same rule.

gdb/doc/ChangeLog:

        (from Yao Qi  <yao@codesourcery.com>)
        (from Joel Brobecker  <brobecker@adacore.com>)
        * gdb.texinfo (GDB/MI Output Syntax): Add some missing "nl"
        markers.  Remove one that was misplaced.

OK to apply?

-- 
Joel