From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19866 invoked by alias); 22 Dec 2013 11:33:21 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 19856 invoked by uid 89); 22 Dec 2013 11:33:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-pa0-f41.google.com Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-pa0-f41.google.com) (209.85.220.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Sun, 22 Dec 2013 11:33:19 +0000 Received: by mail-pa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id lf10so4393710pab.28 for ; Sun, 22 Dec 2013 03:33:17 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.68.200.129 with SMTP id js1mr19756589pbc.14.1387711997808; Sun, 22 Dec 2013 03:33:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.103] ([115.199.135.191]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id i10sm35168856pat.11.2013.12.22.03.33.14 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 22 Dec 2013 03:33:16 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52B6CDAB.1020303@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 11:33:00 -0000 From: asmwarrior User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [RFC, doc] fix document error on the grammar of GDB/MI output format syntax References: <52B69693.10107@gmail.com> <20131222080903.GA4605@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20131222080903.GA4605@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-12/txt/msg00862.txt.bz2 On 2013-12-22 16:09, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> The change log could be: Fix syntax description error about GDB/MI "out-of-band-record", there should be a "new line" in end. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Yuanhui Zhang > I may have given you bad advice when we discussed this on gdb@. > Looking at the patch, I see you're repeating the "nl", which > was what I thought we could avoid. But now that we're trying to > implement the suggestion, and re-reading the grammar, it might > make better logical sense to group the marker used for a given > output report (Eg: "*" or "=") and the associated nl in the same > rule. > > Concretely, this is the patch I would suggest instead (you'll notice > that I removed one such "nl") to move it elsewhere. I think it's an > extension of what you originally suggested? Yes. > Sorry about flip-flopping on you like that... Never mind, thanks for your help. 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{}? 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. Thanks. Yuanhui Zhang