Re: [RFC, doc] fix document error on the grammar of GDB/MI output format syntax

[asmwarrior <asmwarrior@gmail.com>]

On 2013-12-23 8:41, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> 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>)

Mistake here? Wrong person?

>         (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?
> 
I'm OK.

Yuanhui Zhang