On Thursday 12 August 2010 21:04:36 Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
> > Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:25:02 +0400
> > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> > 
> > On Wednesday 11 August 2010 22:00:21 Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > 
> > > > From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
> > > > Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:37:49 +0400
> > > > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> > > > 
> > > > > > +The output of the command has a result record named @samp{memory},
> > > > >                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > > Perhaps "is a result record"?  
> > > > 
> > > > Nope. "result record" is actually a nonterminal in MI grammar, and output
> > > > of a command may have result records but is never a result record itself.
> > > > 
> > > > > And what is the importance of naming
> > > > > this record `memory'? why is the name important here?
> > > > 
> > > > Because for frontend to access a result record in a command output, it
> > > > has to know its name. 
> > > 
> > > Then perhaps
> > > 
> > >   The result record (@pxref{GDB/MI Result Records}) that is output of
> > >   the command includes a field named @samp{memory} whose content is a
> > >   list of tuples ...
> > 
> > This is still not accurate. The output of the command is:
> > 
> > 	- the character sequence "^done"
> >     - zero, one, or more result results, separated with spaces.
> > 
> > So, it's still an command output that "has" a result record named "memory"
> > as opposed to "result record .. is .. output of the command"
> 
> This is a misunderstanding.  In the text I suggested, "record that is
> output", the "output" part is a verb, not a noun.  (I should have said
> "output by the command", though.)  IOW, the text says that the command
> outputs some stuff, and part of that stuff is the result vector with a
> field named "memory".
> 
> Saying "output has the result record" is not good English, because the
> result record is part of the output, not some attribute of it.
> 
> I could try to be more accurate, if "that is output by the command" is
> not good enough, but please note that our current definition of what
> exactly is a "result record" is quite vague.  In fact, we don't say
> what it is at all.  For starters, it talks about "result indications":

Ouch. I don't think we have "result indications" anywhere else.

>   In addition to a number of out-of-band notifications, the response to a
>   @sc{gdb/mi} command includes one of the following result indications:
> 
>   @table @code
>   @findex ^done
>   @item "^done" [ "," @var{results} ]
>   The synchronous operation was successful, @code{@var{results}} are the return
>   values.
> 
>   @item "^running"
>   @findex ^running
>   This result record is equivalent to @samp{^done}.  Historically, it
>   was output instead of @samp{^done} if the command has resumed the
>   target.  This behaviour is maintained for backward compatibility, but
>   all frontends should treat @samp{^done} and @samp{^running}
>   identically and rely on the @samp{*running} output record to determine
>   which threads are resumed.
> 
> My reading of this is that ^done, ^running, etc. _are_ examples of
> result records.  By contrast, you say above that a result record is
> everything _after_ these indications.  This inconsistency is the main
> reason why I deliberately left the text I suggested slightly vague.

It looks like the grammar disagrees with me -- it say result record is
indeed the entire output, which has 'results'.

> I'm open to other suggestions, but if we want to be rigorous, we
> should be more consistent than we are now regarding what exactly is a
> result record.

Yeah, this is rather confusing, so I'll use your wording (with 'by')

I've checked in the below to CVS.

Thanks,

-- 
Vladimir Prus
CodeSourcery
vladimir@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x722