From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-19157-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 20278 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2004 22:23:56 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 20266 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2004 22:23:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao12.cox.net) (68.230.240.27)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 23 Aug 2004 22:23:51 -0000
Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao12.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02.01 201-2131-111-104-103-20040709)
          with ESMTP
          id <20040823222350.XXOC10626.lakermmtao12.cox.net@white>;
          Mon, 23 Aug 2004 18:23:50 -0400
Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1BzNED-00049D-00; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 18:23:49 -0400
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:23:00 -0000
From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
To: Michael Chastain <mec.gnu@mindspring.com>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, drow@false.org
Subject: Re: GDB/MI Output Syntax ambiguity
Message-ID: <20040823222349.GA15932@white>
Mail-Followup-To: Michael Chastain <mec.gnu@mindspring.com>,
	gdb@sources.redhat.com, drow@false.org
References: <20040823210314.GA15374@white> <20040823210924.GA22417@nevyn.them.org> <412A64E9.nailD781GRTXW@mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <412A64E9.nailD781GRTXW@mindspring.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00304.txt.bz2

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 05:43:05PM -0400, Michael Chastain wrote:
> It's been a while since I wrote a yacc grammar, but my inclination
> would be to enhance the lexer and distinguish some new terminals:
> 
>   TOKEN-UPARROW
>   TOKEN-STAR
>   TOKEN-PLUS
>   TOKEN-EQUALS
> 
> Then the grammar goes from LALR(2) to LALR(1), because
> result-record can start with TOKEN-UPARROW, which is just
> one symbol, rather than token "^", which is two symbols.
> That ought to make it yacc-parseable.

Yes, this could work. However, was the original grammer meant to be
LALR(2)?

I am going to try to do some Left Factoring to fix the problem but I
don't think it will work. Plus, I don't have to much experience with
this.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi