Re: asynchronous MI output commands

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 10:49:02PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> OK, I could do this, and if that's the prefered way, then I will. The
> only strange thing about it, is either I need to hack up the parser to
> set a flag when it reaches that point, or I need to walk the parse tree
> semi-deep to get that info. Do you still think that would be the
> prefered way? Actually, I could just see if I ever get to the
> async-record to determine if the command is asynchronous, right?

I just don't understand what your goals and terms are here.

The MI output syntax has a grammar, and the grammar has semantic
information.  One part of the grammar identifies what is synchronous
and what is asynchronous.  If your parser can't keep track of that
information, then perhaps you should think a little more about what
information you need from parsing - that's pretty much the point of
having a parser.

> I just happened to notice that -exec-next and -interpreter-exec console
> next are surprisingly different.

-interpreter-exec, essentially, is synchronous.  This is subject to
change.  The interaction between multiple interpreters is very
difficult.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery