From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-19229-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 25930 invoked by alias); 25 Aug 2004 19:37:12 -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 25919 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2004 19:37:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao02.cox.net) (68.230.240.37)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 25 Aug 2004 19:37:10 -0000
Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao02.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02.01 201-2131-111-104-103-20040709)
          with ESMTP
          id <20040825193700.YSQX7911.lakermmtao02.cox.net@white>;
          Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:37:00 -0400
Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1C03Zr-0005Bw-00; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:36:59 -0400
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:37:00 -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
Message-ID: <20040825193659.GA19945@white>
Mail-Followup-To: Michael Chastain <mec.gnu@mindspring.com>,
	gdb@sources.redhat.com
References: <20040825154348.GA19533@white> <412CB6B6.nail1DX11BPYQ@mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <412CB6B6.nail1DX11BPYQ@mindspring.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00376.txt.bz2

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 11:56:38AM -0400, Michael Chastain wrote:
> Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net> wrote:
> > Does this sound reasonable? and again, should I post a new grammar with
> > the new lines moved to the 'output' production and with the changes I
> > have above?
> 
> I'd love to see your grammar posted.

OK, here is what I have so far. It's pretty simple. Besides from
changing the grammar on the documentation to a lower level BNF form I
have made 3 modifications.

   1. move the 'nl' up as high as it can go.
   2. reduce the async_record
   3. reduce the stream_record

so far, it seems to parse everything I throw at it. However, I haven't
tested it to much because I am building an intermediate representation.
This is what I'll use from the front end.

It would probably be helpful to post the grammar the way I have it, or
some slight modification of it instead or on top of what's on the
website now.

output                  -> oob_record_list opt_result_record "(gdb)" nl
oob_record_list         -> oob_record_list oob_record nl | epsilon
opt_result_record       -> result_record nl | epsilon
result_record           -> opt_token "^" result_class result_list_prime
oob_record              -> async_record | stream_record
async_record            -> opt_token async_record_class async_output
async_record_class      -> "*" | "+" | "="
async_output            -> async_class result_list_prime
result_class            -> "done" | "running" | "connected" | "error" | "exit"
async_class             -> "stopped"
result_list_prime       -> result_list | epsilon
result_list             -> result_list "," result | "," result
result                  -> variable "=" value
variable                -> string
value_list_prime        -> value_list | epsilon
value_list              -> value_list "," value | "," value
value                   -> c_string | tuple | list
tuple                   -> "{}" | "{" result result_list_prime "}"
list                    -> "[]" | "[" value value_list_prime "]" | "[" result result_list_prime "]"
stream_record           -> stream_record_class c_string
stream_record_class     -> "~" | "@" | "&"
nl                      -> CR | CR_LF
opt_token               -> token | epsilon
token                   -> any sequence of digits.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi