This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: GDB/MI Output syntax
>Andrew, were you suggesting something like this?
>
>from
> output ==> ( out-of-band-record )* [ result-record ] "(gdb)" nl
>to
> output ==> (out-of-band-record nl)* [ result-record nl] "(gdb)" nl
>
>and removing the 'nl' everywhere else?
Yep.
>That might actually work. Although, I don't personally know a way of
>changing a grammar and guaranteeing that there the same.
A series of rewrites where NL is slow pushed down should eventually
result in the old grammar (well except that it would be fixed).
By the way you are talking, I can't tell if you are going to do this, or
if you expect someone else to do it?
I eye balled it - it puts a NL at the end of each record which was the
intent.
Should I just post a new grammar with the suggestion? The problem is, I
don't know how to prove that the new grammar is equivalant to the old
grammar. Is there a way to do that?
Well, to be pedantic, the old grammer contained a bug which this fixes
so we can't prove equivalence. However using a sequence of
transformations (rewrite was a poor choice of word) we can show rough
equivalence. For instance:
@item @var{output} @expansion{}
@code{( @var{out-of-band-record} @var{nl} )* [ @var{result-record} @var{nl} ] "(gdb)" @var{nl}}
@item @var{result-record} @expansion{}
@code{[ @var{token} ] "^" @var{result-class} ( "," @var{result} )*}
Moving result-record's NL into the result-record production yields:
@item @var{output} @expansion{}
@code{( @var{out-of-band-record} @var{nl})* [ @var{result-record} ] "(gdb)" @var{nl}}
@item @var{result-record} @expansion{}
@code{ [ @var{token} ] "^" @var{result-class} ( "," @var{result} )* @var{nl}}
which is the easy one done. The other while longer and more tedious is
similar except it ends up pushing an NL down into stream-record (where
it was missing).
Is this what you ment?
Andrew