From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20219 invoked by alias); 6 May 2006 11:51:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 20066 invoked by uid 22791); 6 May 2006 11:51:31 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from eastrmmtao02.cox.net (HELO eastrmmtao02.cox.net) (68.230.240.37) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 06 May 2006 11:51:24 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([68.9.66.48]) by eastrmmtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060506115122.TVXZ15470.eastrmmtao02.cox.net@localhost.localdomain>; Sat, 6 May 2006 07:51:22 -0400 Received: from bob by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.52) id 1FcLKE-0005wo-Fh; Sat, 06 May 2006 07:51:54 -0400 Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 12:06:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: gdb@sourceware.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: asynchronous MI output commands Message-ID: <20060506115154.GH25114@brasko.net> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20060506012706.GA25114@brasko.net> <20060506015903.GA13095@nevyn.them.org> <20060506024902.GD25114@brasko.net> <20060506040553.GA14819@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060506040553.GA14819@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00053.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20060506120600.Tepquu3Ss1A7O5FtguGYZDhp85ptGha8ydBLOV97zp0@z> On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 12:05:53AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > 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. I guess I don't either, I'm just trying to understand how to look at each MI output command and how to classify them. > 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 aggree with you know, just needed someone else's point of view. I'll check the parser to see if it went down the asynchronous route. Thanks. Bob Rossi