From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-19167-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 29121 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2004 12:36:17 -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 29109 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2004 12:36:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao04.cox.net) (68.230.240.35)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 24 Aug 2004 12:36:14 -0000
Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao04.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02.01 201-2131-111-104-103-20040709)
          with ESMTP
          id <20040824123613.DHKZ4754.lakermmtao04.cox.net@white>;
          Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:36:13 -0400
Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1BzaX7-0004NO-00; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:36:13 -0400
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:36:00 -0000
From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
To: Michael Chastain <mec.gnu@mindspring.com>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: GDB/MI Output Syntax ambiguity
Message-ID: <20040824123613.GC16751@white>
Mail-Followup-To: Michael Chastain <mec.gnu@mindspring.com>,
	gdb@sources.redhat.com
References: <20040823210314.GA15374@white> <412ABC62.nailDPO16U0B2@mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <412ABC62.nailDPO16U0B2@mindspring.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00314.txt.bz2

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 11:56:18PM -0400, Michael Chastain wrote:
> [Shout out to Paul Hilfinger, who was my professor in compiler class,
>  Spring 1983, UC Berkeley!]
> 
> The grammar in gdb.info from gdb 6.2 has stuff like (foo)* and [bar] and is
> not quite low-level enough for bison input.
> 
> I made a grammar out of it by expanding the (foo)* and [bar] stuff
> with rules.  Appended is my grammar as I typed it in.

I will compare the grammar more in detail. However, these are the 5
rules I applied to get the MI grammar to not have any left recursions.

1. (out-of-band-record)* ->
    out-of-band-record-prime -> out-of-band-record-list | epsilon
    out-of-band-record-list  -> out-of-band-record-list out-of-band-record | out-of-band-record

2. [result-record]
    possible-result-record -> result-record | epsilon

3. [token]
    possible-token -> token | epsilon

4. ( "," result )*
    result-list-prime -> result-list | epsilon
    result-list       -> result-list "," result | "," result

5. ( "," value )*
    value-list-prime -> value-list | epsilon
    value-list       -> value-list "," value | "," value

Other than that, I think it's all still the same.
I will compare the grammars in more detail today.

Thanks for putting in the great effort!
Bob Rossi