LR Parsing Techniques


 Betty Charleen Richardson
 3 years ago
 Views:
Transcription
1 LR Parsing Techniques BottomUp Parsing  LR: a special form of BU Parser LR Parsing as Handle Pruning ShiftReduce Parser (LR Implementation) LR(k) Parsing Model  k lookaheads to determine next action Parsing Table Construction: SLR, LR, LLR 1
2 BottomUp Parsing bottomup parser attempts to construct a parse tree for an input string beginning at the leaves (the bottom) and working up towards the root (the top). 2
3 BottomUp Parsing: Ex1 BU Parsing: Construct a parse tree from the leaves to the root: lefttoright reduction G: S a B e input: abbcde b c b B d S B B a b b c d e a b b c d e a b b c d e a b b c d e a b b c d e 3
4 BottomUp Parsing: Ex2 BU Parsing: Construct a parse tree from the leaves to the root: random reduction G: S a B e input: abbcde b c b B d S B B B a b b c d e a b b c d e a b b c d e a b b c d e a b b c d e 4
5 LR Parsing: BU + LefttoRight Many ways to construct a parse tree bottomup Ex1 & Ex2 Prefer a simpler form of parser Lefttoright scanning If scanning strictly Lefttoright Rightmost derivation in reverse (thus the name LR Parser). Why rm.? ( Ex1) Never consider right terminals while reducing left ( N)* Reduce left ( N)* (terminals or nonterminals) as much as possible until no further reduce Shift when no further reduce Reversing the sequence of reduction corresponds to a rightmost derivation LR Parser special form of BU Parser parser with simpler form: lefttoright scan 5
6 LR Parsing: BU + LefttoRight LR Parsing: Construct a parse tree from the leaves to the root, scanning lefttoright (resulting in rightmost derivation in reverse) a b b c S a B e b c b B d d e a a b b c b b c d e d e a b b c d e input: abbcde a b b c B d e abbcde rm abcde rm ade rm abe rm S a b b S c B d e 6
7 Rightmost Derivation in Reverse E 1 E 5 E 3 E 2 E 3 E 4 E 5 E 4 E 1 E 2 id1 + id2 * id3 id1 + id2 * id3 8
8 LR Parsing The L stands for scanning the input from left to right The R stands for constructing a rightmost derivation in reverse 9
9 LR Parsing LR Parsing =/= Leftmost Reduction The 1 st reducible substring does not always result in successful parse Handle(s): those successfully lead to S TopDown: Expansion Matching BottomUp: Shift/Reduce Locating next handle to reduce [How To??] Handle pruning: hide details below reduced ( N)* a b b c d e a b b c d e 10
10 Handles NOT all (leftmost) reduction ( ) leads to the start symbol S: rm rm (n) rm S Only some handles do handle of a rightsentential form consists of a production a position of where can be replaced by to produce the previous rightsentential form in a rightmost derivation of Rightsent. forms: abbcde rm abcde rm ade rm abe rm S Handles: b b c B d S a B e 11
11 If S * rm rm Handles, then in the position following is a handle of. (The string contains only terminal symbols.) We say a handle rather than the handle since the grammar may be ambiguous. But if the grammar is unambiguous, then every right sentential form has exactly one handle. 12
12 LR Parsing as Handle Pruning rm rm S S Pruning: Find a string that is reducible to S and hide its details by reduction and proceed with the new sentential form. Never consider right terminals while reducing left grammar symbols The string to the right of the handle contains only terminals ( is the rightmost nonterminal) is the leftmost complete interior node with all its children in the tree 15
13 n Example S S S B B B a b b c d e a b c d e a d e S B S a e 16
14 LR Parsing as Handle Pruning (1st reduction sequence) rightmost derivation in reverse can be obtained by handle pruning. Let G = E E+E E*E (E) id (ambiguous!) rm Rightsentential Handle Reducing form production id 1 +id 2 *id 3 id 1 E id E+id 2 *id 3 id 2 E id E+E*id 3 id 3 E id E+E*E E*E E E*E E+E E+E E E+E E 17
15 LR Parsing as Handle Pruning (2nd reduction sequence) rightmost derivation in reverse can be obtained by handle pruning. rm Let G = E E+E E*E (E) id (ambiguous!) Rightsentential Handle Reducing form production id 1 +id 2 *id 3 id 1 E id E+id 2 *id 3 id 2 E id E+E*id 3 E+E E E+E E*id 3 id 3 E id E*E E*E E E*E E 18
16 ShiftReduce Parsing rm rm S shift Input Handle reduce) Parsing program Output Stack Parsing table 20
17 Stack Implementation of ShiftReduce Parsers convenient way to implement a shiftreduce parse is to use a stack to hold grammar symbols and an input buffer to hold the string to be parsed. a pushdown machine with a tape The parser operates by shifting zero or more symbols onto the stack until a handle is on top of the stack. The parser then replaces/reduces with/to the left side of the appropriate production. This procedure repeats until the stack contains the start symbol and the input is empty. 21
18 Stack Operations Shift: shift the next input symbol onto the top of the stack Reduce: replace the handle at the top of the stack with the corresponding nonterminal ccept: announce successful completion of the parsing Error: call an error recovery routine 22
19 n Example ction Stack Input S $ a b b c d e $ S $ a b b c d e $ R $ a b b c d e $ S $ a b c d e $ S $ a b c d e $ R $ a b c d e $ S $ a d e $ R $ a d e $ S $ a B e $ R $ a B e $ $ S $ 24
20 Configurations of shiftreduce parser on inputid 1 +id 2 *id 3 Step Stack Input ction 1 $ id 1 +id 2 *id 3 $ shift 2 $id 1 +id 2 *id 3 $ reduce by E id 3 $E +id 2 *id 3 $ shift 4 $E+ id 2 *id 3 $ shift 5 $E+id 2 *id 3 $ reduce by E id 6 $E+E *id 3 $ shift 7 $E+E* id 3 $ shift 8 $E+E*id 3 $ reduce by E id 9 $E+E*E $ reduce by E E*E 10 $E+E $ reduced by E E+E 11 $E $ accept *Note: The grammar is ambiguous. Therefore, there is another possible reduction sequence. 25
21 G: S a B e b c b B d Input: abbcde LR Parsing States S 10 How to represent parsing states so we can tell the right parsing actions to take? B a b b c d e $
22 G: S a B e b c b B d Input: abbcde LR Parsing States S 10 How to represent parsing states so we can tell the right parsing actions to take? B a b b c d e $
23 G: S a B e b c b B d Input: abbcde LR Parsing States S0:. S. a B e S 10 B a b b c d e $
24 G: S a B e b c b B d Input: abbcde LR Parsing States S 10 S1: S a. B e (shift a).bc.b B a b b c d e $
25 G: S a B e b c b B d Input: abbcde LR Parsing States S 10 S2: b. (shift b, to reduce b) B a b b c d e $
26 G: S a B e b c b B d Input: abbcde LR Parsing States S 10 S3: S a. B e B. d.bc B a b b c d e $
27 G: S a B e b c b B d Input: abbcde LR Parsing States S 10 S4: b.c (shift b) B a b b c d e $
28 G: S a B e b c b B d Input: abbcde LR Parsing States S5: bc. (shift c, reduce bc) S 10 B a b b c d e $
29 G: S a B e b c b B d Input: abbcde LR Parsing States S 10 S6: S a. B e B. d B a b b c d e $
30 G: S a B e b c b B d Input: abbcde LR Parsing States S 10 S7: B d. (shift d, reduce B d) B a b b c d e $
31 G: S a B e b c b B d Input: abbcde LR Parsing States S8: S a B. e S 10 B a b b c d e $
32 G: S a B e b c b B d Input: abbcde LR Parsing States S9: S a B e. (shift e, reduce S a B e ) S 10 B a b b c d e $
33 G: S a B e b c b B d Input: abbcde LR Parsing States S10: S S. (S reduced) S 10 B a b b c d e $
34 G: S a B e b c b B d Input: abbcde LR Parsing States S0:. S. a B e S1: S a. B e (shift a) a.bc.b.bc.b (closed, no further expansion) S2: b. (shift b, reduce b) a S3: S a. B e B. d.bc S4: b.c (shift b) a b S5: bc. (shift c, reduce bc) S6: S a. B e B. d S7: B d. (shift d, reduce B d) a b S8: S a B. e S9: S a B e. (shift e, reduce S a B e ) S10: S S. (S reduced) b b b b c b c d e B b c c d e d e d e a S B b b c d e 39
35 mbiguity: Sources of Conflicts When trying to reduce a substring of the current sentential form: Not all reducible substrings are handles mbiguous: More than one substring as a handle Sources of Conflicts nonlr Grammar Shiftreduce conflicts Reducereduce conflicts 40
36 Shift/Reduce Conflict stmt if expr then stmt if expr then stmt else stmt other Stack Input $ if expr then stmt * else stmt $ Shift if expr then stmt else stmt Reduce if expr then stmt 41
37 Reduce/Reduce Conflict (1) stmt id ( para_list ) // func(a,b) (2) stmt expr := expr (3) para_list para_list, para (4) para_list para (5) para id (6) expr id ( expr_list ) // array(a,b) (7) expr id (8) expr_list expr_list, expr (9) expr_list expr Need a complex lexical analyzer to identify id vs. procid  Reduction depends on stack[sp2] Stack Input (a) $ id ( id, id ) $ [Q: r5? r7?] [Sol: use stmt procid ( para_list ) => (a) r7 (b) r5] (b) $   procid ( id, id ) $ [r5] 42
38 LR(k) Grammars Only some classes of grammars, known as the LR(k) Grammars, can be parsed deterministically by a shiftreduce parser CFG s that are nonlr may need some adaptation to make them deterministically parsed with a shiftreduce parser Parsing Table Construction Predict handles at each positions (after shifts) 43
39 LR(k) Parsing The L stands for scanning the input from left to right The R stands for constructing a rightmost derivation in reverse The k stands for the number of lookahead input symbols used to make parsing decisions 44
40 LR Parsing The LR parsing algorithm Constructing SLR(1) parsing tables Constructing LR(1) parsing tables Constructing LLR(1) parsing tables 45
41 Model of an LR Parser State after action handle Stack S m X m S m1 Shift/Reduce LR Parsing Program Input Output State after Reduction State before action Initial State X m1 S 0 ction Goto Parsing table 46
42 Parsing Table for Expression Grammar (0) E E (1) E E + T (2) E T (3) T T * F (4) T F (5) F ( E ) (6) F id Follow(E)={+,),$} Follow(T)={+,),$,*} Follow(F)={+,),$,*} State ction Goto id + * ( ) $ E T F 0 s5 s s6 acc 2 r2 s7 r2 r2 3 r4 r4 r4 r4 4 s5 s r6 r6 r6 r6 6 s5 s s5 s s6 s11 9 r1 s7 r1 r1 10 r3 r3 r3 r3 11 r5 r5 r5 r5 47
43 GOTO ctions I0: E. E E.E+T E.T T.T*F T.F F.(E) F.id E T F I1: E E. E E.+T I2: E T. T T.*F I3: T F. 0 E 1 0 T 2 0 F 3 0 id 5 ( id fter reduction Before reduction I4: F (.E) E.E+T E.T T.T*F T.F F.(E) F.id I5: F id. 48
44 LR Parsing lgorithm Input: n input string and an LR parsing table with functions action and goto for a grammar G. Output: If is in L(G), a bottomup parse for ; otherwise, an error indication. Method: Initially, the parser has s 0 on its stack, where s 0 is the initial state, and $ in the input buffer. Shift/reduce according to the parsing table (See next Page) 49
45 LR Parsing Program while (1) do { s := the state of top of the stack; a := get input token; if (action[s,a] == shift s ) { push a then s on top of the stack; a = get input token; } else if (action[s,a] == reduce > ) { pop 2* symbols off the stack; s = the state now on top of the stack; push then goto[s,] on top of the stack; output the production > ; } else if (action[s,a] == accept) return; else error(); } 50
46 Stack Input LR Parsing onid 1 *id 2 +id 3 shift/reduce+goto ction (1) 0 id * id + id $ (0,id):s5 Shift (2) 0 id 5 * id + id $ (5,*):r6; (0,F):3 Reduce by F id (3) 0 F 3 * id + id $ (3,*):r4; (0,T):2 Reduce by T F (4) 0 T 2 * id + id $ (2,*):s7 Shift (5) 0 T 2 * 7 id + id $ (7,id):s5 Shift (6) 0 T 2 * 7 id 5 + id $ (5,+):r6; (7,F):10 Reduce by F id (7) 0 T 2 * 7 F 10 + id $ (10,+):r3; (0,T):2 Reduce by T T*F (8) 0 T 2 + id $ (2,+):r2; (0,E):1 Reduce by E T (9) 0 E 1 + id $ (1,+):s6 Shift (10) 0 E id $ (6,id):s5 Shift (11) 0 E id 5 $ (5,$):r6; (6,F):3 Reduce by F id (12) 0 E F 3 $ (3,$):r4; (6,T):9 Reduce by T F (13) (14) 0 E T 9 0 E 1 $ $ (9,$):r1; (0,E):1 (1,$):acc Reduce by E E+T ccept 51
47 LR Parsing dvantages Efficient: nonbacktracking Efficient Parsing Efficient Error detection (& correction) Coverage: Detect syntax error as soon as one appear during LoR scan virtually all programming languages G(LR) > G(TD predictive parsing) Disadvantages: Too much work to construct by hands ( YCC) 52
48 How To: LR Parsing (repeated) LR Parsing =/= Leftmost Reduction The 1 st reducible substring does not always result in successful parse Handle(s): those successfully lead to S TopDown: Expansion Matching BottomUp: Shift/Reduce Locating next handle to reduce [How To??] Handle pruning: hide details below reduced ( N)* 53
49 LR Parsing Table Construction Techniques Parsing Table Construction: SLR(1) Parser  LR(0) Items & States LR(1) Parser  shift/reduce conflict resolution  LR(1) Items & States LLR(1) Parser  LR(1) state merge  reducereduce conflict 54
50 SLR Parser Coverage: weakest in terms of #grammars it succeeds Easiest to construct Parser: a DF for recognizing viable prefixes States: Sets of LR(0) Items The items in a set can be viewed as the states of an NF recognizing viable prefixes Grouping items into sets is equivalent to subset construction 56
51 G: S a B e b c b B d Input: abbcde LR Parsing States S0:. S. a B e S1: S a. B e (shift a) a.bc.b.bc.b (closed, no further expansion) S2: b. (shift b, reduce b) a S3: S a. B e B. d.bc S4: b.c (shift b) a b S5: bc. (shift c, reduce bc) S6: S a. B e B. d S7: B d. (shift d, reduce B d) a b S8: S a B. e S9: S a B e. (shift e, reduce S a B e ) S10: S S. (S reduced) b b b b c b c d e B b c c d e d e d e a S B b b c d e 57
52 Viable Prefix The set of prefixes of c.s.f. s (canonical/right sentential forms) that can appear on the stack of a shiftreduce parser are called viable prefixes. Equivalently, it is a prefix of a rightsentential form that does not continue past the right end of the rightmost handle of that sentential form If is a viable prefix, then w * w is a c.s.f. 59
53 Item and Valid Item n LR(0) item (item for short) is a marked production [ 1 2 ] (dotted rule: production with a dot at RHS) n item [ 1 2 ] is said to be valid for some viable prefix 1 iff w * S * w 1 2 w The represents where we are now during parsing Left of dot: those scanned Right of dot: those to be visited later S w
54 Example of Valid Item Consider the grammar: S 1C D C 3 4 D 1B B 2 S S or S D 1 C Valid items for the viable prefix : [S 1C], [S D], and [D 1B] 1 B 61
55 Example of Valid Item (cont.) ssume 1, i.e., S ' could be S 1 C or S 1 C D S 1 B Valid items for the viable prefix 1 : [S 1 C], [C 3], [C 4], [D 1 B], and [B 2] 62
56 Example of Valid Item (cont.) ssume S 1 C 3 Valid item for viable prefix 13 : [C 3 ] Valid item for viable prefix 1C : [S 1C ] 63
57 Closure: ll Valid Items Enumerable from G Given a grammar E E E E+T T T T*F F F (E) id What are valid items for the viable prefix E+? [E E+ T], but also [T... F] since 1 2 E * E+T T F E+ F 1 2 Likewise, [T T*F], [T F], [F (E)], [F id] called Closure of [E E+ T] (inclusive)
58 Computation of Closure Given a set, I, of items Initially Closure(I) = I Loop: for all items [ B ] If [ B ] is in Closure(I) and B is in P, then include [B ] into Closure(I). Repeat the Loop until no new dotted rules can be added Initial set of items for a grammar: I 0 = Closure({[S S] }) (S: start symbol, S : augmented start symbol) 65
59 GOTO Computation Let I be a set of items which are valid for some viable prefix. Then goto(i,x), where X (N or Σ), is the set of items which are valid for the viable prefix X. So [ X ] in I implies Closure({[ X ]}) in goto(i,x) S * ]w X w X w ([]: set of items I, including [ X ] others) = 66
60 Sets of LR(0) Items Construction ugment the grammar with: S S Let I 0 = Closure({[S S] }), C = {I 0 } while (not all elements of C are marked) { } select an unmarked item set of C (say I ) and mark it;  X (V or Σ), if goto(i,x) is not already in C, then add goto(i,x) to C (unmarked); also called Characteristic Finite State Machine (CFSM) Construction lgorithm. 67
61 SLR(1) Parsing ctions Compute the CFSM states C={I 0,I 1,,I n }. 1. If [ a ] I i and goto(i i,a) = I j then set action(i i,a) = shift,i j (where a is a terminal) 2. If [ ] I i then set action(i i,a) = reduce for all a in Follow() 1. terminal a in Follow() does not guarantee that will result in a successful parse. (not necessarily a handle ) 2. But, a terminal NOT in Follow() will definitely indicate an impossible parse. 3. So reduction on symbols in Follow() is only a loose criterion for possible success parse. 3. If [S S ] I i then set action(i i,$) = accept 4. Other action(*,*) = error 68
62 Conflicts Shiftreduce conflicts: both a shift action and a reduce action are possible in the same Closure. E.g., state 2 in Figure 4.37 (p.229) [ho 86] Reducereduce conflicts: two or more distinct reduce actions are possible in the same Closure. 69
63 Example: Grammar G for Math Expressions (0) E E (1) E E+T (2) E T (3) T T*F (4) T F (5) F (E) (6) F id Follow(E)={+,),$}, Follow(T)={+,),$,*}, Follow(F)={+,),$,*} 70
64 Computing SLR(1) States for G an SLR(1) State = a set of LR(0) items (See the next slide, Fig. 4.35, page 225, [ho 86]) 71
65 Canonical LR(0) Collection for G I0: E. E E.E+T E.T T.T*F T.F F.(E) F.id ( ( E T F T I1: E E. E E.+T I2: E T. T T.*F I3: T F. I4: F (.E) E.E+T E.T T.T*F T.F F.(E) F.id F + * E I6: E E+.T T.T*F T.F F.(E) F.id F I7: T T*.F F.(E) F.id + I8: F (E.) E E.+T T ( id ( id I9: E E+T. T T.*F * I10: T T*F. F I11: F (E). ) id id I5: F id. 72
66 GOTO ctions I0: E. E E.E+T E.T T.T*F T.F F.(E) F.id E T F I1: E E. E E.+T I2: E T. T T.*F I3: T F. 0 E 1 0 T 2 0 F 3 0 id 5 ( id fter reduction Before reduction I4: F (.E) E.E+T E.T T.T*F T.F F.(E) F.id I5: F id. 74
67 Parsing Table for Expression Grammar (0) E E (1) E E + T (2) E T (3) T T * F (4) T F (5) F ( E ) (6) F id Follow(E)={+,),$} Follow(T)={+,),$,*} Follow(F)={+,),$,*} State ction Goto id + * ( ) $ E T F 0 s5 s s6 acc 2 r2 s7 r2 r2 3 r4 r4 r4 r4 4 s5 s r6 r6 r6 r6 6 s5 s s5 s s6 s11 9 r1 s7 r1 r1 10 r3 r3 r3 r3 11 r5 r5 r5 r5 76
68 Transition Diagram of DF D for Viable Prefixes State transition in terms of sets of LR(0) items (Fig. 4.36) SLR(1) Parsing Table: (Fig. 4.31) I i = a => I j : action(i,a) = shiftj I i = => I j : goto(i,) = j I i : [. ] action(i,follow()) = reduce [ If = S (augmented start symbol ) action(i,$)=accept 77
69 Visualizing Transitions in the Transition Diagram Shift: moving forward one step along arc Equivalent to pushing input symbols Reduce LHS RHS : moving backward to a previous state s along arcs labeled with the RHS symbols Then GOTO(s, LHS) equivalent to popping RHS symbols from stack then pushing LHS, then redefining current state 78
70 Parsing Table for Expression Grammar State action goto id + * ( ) $ E T F 0 s5 s s6 acc 2 r2 s7 r2 r2 3 r4 r4 r4 r4 4 s5 s r6 r6 r6 r6 6 s5 s s5 s s6 s11 9 r1 s7 r1 r1 10 r3 r3 r3 r3 11 r5 r5 r5 r5 79
71 LR Parsing Table Construction Techniques Canonical LR Parsing Table LLR Parsing Table (See Textbook ) 80
72 Canonical LR Parser SLR(1) parser does NOT always work SLR(1) Grammar => Unambiguous Unambiguous CFG =/=> SLR(1) Grammar E.g., Shiftreduce conflicts in the SLR(1) parsing table may NOT be a real shiftreduce conflict (e.g., impossible reduce ) Need more specific & additional information to define states [to avoid false reductions] use LR(1) items, instead of LR(0) items Much more states than SLR(1) Need (canonical) LR(1) or LLR(1) Parsers (Parsing Table construction methods) 81
73 (0) S S (1) S L = R (2) S R Example: nonslr(1) Grammar for ssignment (3) L * R (content of R) (4) L id (5) R L L I2: Follow(R) = { =, } (1) S L. = R (5) R L. R ction(2, = ) = reduce 5 I3: ction(2, = ) =shift 6 (2) S R. = Follow(S) S => L = R => *R = R IF: Reduce on = Goto I3 Error ( Follow(S)) 82 NOT Really Reducible
74 Example: nonslr(1) Grammar for ssignment Problem: G is unambiguous SLR Shift/Reduce conflict is false, but SLR parsing table is unable to remember enough left context to decide proper action on = when seeing a string reducible to L 83
75 Why Unambiguous Yet NonSLR(1) Some reduce actions are not really reducible by checking input against Follow(LHS) Not all symbols in FOLLOW(LHS) result in successful reduction to S. May fail after a few steps of reductions. SLR(1) states does not resolve such conflicts by using LR(0)item defined states Need more specific constraints to rule out a subset of Follow(LHS) from indicating a reduction action 84
76 LR(1) Parsing Table Construction SLR: reduce on input a if Ii contains [.] & a FOLLOW() Not really reducible for all a FOLLOW() Only a subset (maybe proper subset) But on some cases: S a =/=> a Reduce does not produce a right sentential form E.g., S L = R =/=> S R = R although S *R = R = in follow(r) 85
77 LR(1) Parsing Table Construction Solution: Define each state by including more specific information to rule out invalid reductions Sometimes results in splitting states of the same core LR(0) items: [. ] Only dotted production (the core ) LR(1) items: [., L s] Dotted production(the core ), plus lookaheads that allow reduction upon [ ] 1 : length of L symbols 86
78 LR(1) Parsing Table Construction [., a] (& ) : L ( a ) has no effect on items of this form [., a] (i.e., = ): L has effect on items of this form Reduction is called for only when next input is a (not all terminal symbols in Follow()) Only a subset in Follow() will be the right L s Initially, only one restriction is known: [S. S, $] Infer other restrictions by closure computation 87
79 LR(1) Item and Valid Item n LR(1) item is a dotted production plus lookahead symbols: [,, a] n LR(1) item [,, a] is said to be valid for a viable prefix if r.m. derivation S * w w, where 2. a First(w) (or w= && a = $ ) The represents where we are now during parsing Left of dot: those scanned Right of dot: those to be visited later 88
80 LR(1) Parsing Table Construction Change the closure() and goto() functions of SLR parsing table construction, with initial collection: C = {closure({s. S, $})} [ B a] valid implies [B, b] valid if b is in FIRST( a) Construction method for set of LR(1) items See next few pages 89
81 LR(1): Closure(I) Given a set, I, of items Initially Closure(I) = I Repeat: for each items [ B a] in I, each production B is in G, and each terminal b in FIRST( a), include [B, b] to Closure(I). Until no more items can be added to I 90
82 LR(1): GOTO(I,X) Let J = {[ X, a] such that [ X a] is in I}. goto(i,x) = closure(j) That is: J = {} For all [ X a] in I, J += {[ X, a]} Return(closure(J)) I: [ X, a] [ X, a ] X J: [ X, a] [ X, a ] Goto(I,X) = Closure ({[ X, a], [ X, a ]}) 91
83 Sets of LR(1) Items Construction ugment the grammar with: S S, call it G Let I 0 = Closure({[S S, $] }), C = {I 0 } Repeat { }  I C,  X (N or Σ), if goto(i,x) is not already in C, then add goto(i,x) to C Until no more sets of items can be added to C 92
84 Example: resolving shift/reduce conflicts with LR(1) items G : {S S, S CC, C cc d} L(G)={ c m d c n d } => I0 ~ I9 (Fig. 4.39, p. 235 [ho 86]) I3 vs. I6: same set of LR(0) items with different lookaheads Conditions for reduction are different I3: reduce on c/d (when constructing 1 st C ) I6: reduce on $ (when constructing 2 nd C ) 93
85 SLR(1) Goto Graph S I1: S S. [$] I0: S. S S.CC C.cC C.d C I2: S C.C C.cC C.d C I5: S CC.[$] c d Follow Sets: S: {$} C: {c,d,$} c c I3: C c.c C.cC C.d C I8: C cc.,c/d/$ G: S S S CC C cc C d d d I4: C d.,c/d/$ 94
86 LR(1) Goto Graph S I1: S S., $ I0: S. S, $ S.CC, $ C.cC, c/d C.d,c/d C I2: S C.C, $ C.cC, $ C.d,$ C c I5: S CC., $ c I6: C c.c, $ C.cC, $ C.d,$ C I9: C cc.,$ c c I3: C c.c, c/d C.cC, c/d C.d,c/d C d d I7: C d.,$ I8: C cc.,c/d G: S S S CC C cc C d d d I4: C d.,c/d 95
87 Construction of Canonical LR(1) Parsing Table lgorithm 4.10 Shift: (same as SLR, ignoring L in item) Reduce on a : [,, a] ccept on $ : [S S,, $] Goto: (same as SLR) LR(1) Grammar: a grammar without conflicts (multiply defined actions) in LR(1) Parsing Table 96
88 SLR(1) vs. LR(1) LR(1): more specific states May split into states with the same core but with different lookaheads SLR(1) Grammar LR(1) Grammar Number of states LR(1) >> SLR(1) 97
89 LLR(1) Merge LR(1) states with the same core, while retaining lookahead symbols Considerably smaller than canonical LR tables Most programming language constructs can be expressed by an LLR grammar SLR and LLR have the same number of states Without/with lookahead symbols [full/subset of FOLLOW] Several hundred states for PSCL Several thousands, if using LR(1) G is an LLR(1) Grammar: if no conflicts after state merge 98
90 LLR(1) vs. LR(1) Effect of LR(1) state merge: The merging of states with common cores can never produce a shiftreduce conflict that was not present in one of the original states Because shift actions depend only on the core, not the lookahead However, a merge may produce a reducereduce conflict. Because union of lookaheads may introduce unnecessary reductions 99
91 LLR(1) vs. LR(1) Example: merging that produces reducereduce conflicts. LR(1) Grammar: S S S ad bbd abe be c B c Sets of LR(1) items: {[ c.,d], [B c.,e]} (valid for viable prefix ac) {[ c.,e], [B c.,d]} (valid for viable prefix bc) Merging states with common cores {[ c.,d/e], [B c.,d/e]} merging also merges loohaheads Reducereduce conflicts: cand B c,on inputs d and e 100
92 LLR(1) vs. LR(1) Effect of LR(1) state merge: Behave like the original, or Declare error later, but before shifting next input symbol For correct input: LR and LLR have the same sequence of shift/reduce For erroneous input: LLR requires extra reduces after LR has detected an error (but before shifting next) 101
93 Example: Merge States with Same Core Fig. 4.39: I4 vs. I7 same reduction with different lookaheads State merge: dotted rules remain, L s merged Examples: I3 + I6 => I36 I4 + I7 => I47 I8 + I9 => I89 Same as SLR(1) table (Fig. 4.41, p239, [ho 86]) 102
94 LLR(1) Parsing Table Construction (I) Method 1: (Naïve Method) [1] Construct LR(1) parsing table Very costly [#states is normally very large] [2] Merge states with the same core 103
95 LLR(1) Parsing Table Construction (II) Method 2: (Efficient Construction Method) [1] Construct kernels set of LR(0) items, from [S S] It is Possible to Compute shift/reduce/goto actions directly from kernel items kernel items: items whose dot is not at the beginning, except [S. S, $]: those not derived from closure() Can represent a set of items [2] ppend lookaheads Compute initial spontaneous lookaheads, and those item pairs that pass Propagated lookaheads 104
96 LLR(1) Parsing Table Construction (II.1) Compute shift/reduce/goto actions directly from kernel items: (pps ) Reduce: Shift: Goto: Need to precompute First (C) = { r.m. C * } for all pairs of nonterminals (C, ) and 105
97 LLR(1) Parsing Table Construction (II.2) Determine spontaneous and propagated lookaheads (Fig. 4.43) Compute closure({core,#}) by assuming a dummy lookahead # 106
98 LLR(1) Parsing Table Construction: Example Example: 4.46/Fig [p. 241, ho 86] Kernels of sets of LR(0) items Fig [with nonkernel items] Example: 4.47 Get Spontaneous & Propagated lookaheads Fig. 4.44: item pairs that propagate lookaheads Fig. 4.45: initial spontaneous lookahead, and multiple passes of lookahead propagation LLR(1) parsing table: Todo by yourself 107
99 LLR(1) Parsing Table Construction LLR(/LR) (Fig 4.45) SLR (Fig. 4.37) SLR: I2: shift/reduce conflict on = I2: (1) S L. = R (5) R L. LLR(/LR): I2: shift on =, reduce on $, NO conflict I2: (1) S L. = R, $ (5) R L., $ 108
100 Using mbiguous Grammar (see Handouts) 109
101 Parser Generators YCC (Slide Part II) 110
LR Parsing Techniques
LR Parsing Techniques Introduction BottomUp Parsing LR Parsing as Handle Pruning ShiftReduce Parser LR(k) Parsing Model Parsing Table Construction: SLR, LR, LALR 1 BottomUP Parsing A bottomup parser
More informationBottomup parsing. BottomUp Parsing. Recall. Goal: For a grammar G, withstartsymbols, any string α such that S α is called a sentential form
Bottomup parsing Bottomup parsing Recall Goal: For a grammar G, withstartsymbols, any string α such that S α is called a sentential form If α V t,thenα is called a sentence in L(G) Otherwise it is just
More informationLALR Parsing. What Yacc and most compilers employ.
LALR Parsing Canonical sets of LR(1) items Number of states much larger than in the SLR construction LR(1) = Order of thousands for a standard prog. Lang. SLR(1) = order of hundreds for a standard prog.
More informationBottom up parsing. The sentential forms happen to be a right most derivation in the reverse order. S a A B e a A d e. a A d e a A B e S.
Bottom up parsing Construct a parse tree for an input string beginning at leaves and going towards root OR Reduce a string w of input to start symbol of grammar Consider a grammar S aabe A Abc b B d And
More informationUNITIII BOTTOMUP PARSING
UNITIII BOTTOMUP PARSING Constructing a parse tree for an input string beginning at the leaves and going towards the root is called bottomup parsing. A general type of bottomup parser is a shiftreduce
More information3. Syntax Analysis. Andrea Polini. Formal Languages and Compilers Master in Computer Science University of Camerino
3. Syntax Analysis Andrea Polini Formal Languages and Compilers Master in Computer Science University of Camerino (Formal Languages and Compilers) 3. Syntax Analysis CS@UNICAM 1 / 54 Syntax Analysis: the
More informationA leftsentential form is a sentential form that occurs in the leftmost derivation of some sentence.
Bottomup parsing Recall For a grammar G, with start symbol S, any string α such that S α is a sentential form If α V t, then α is a sentence in L(G) A leftsentential form is a sentential form that occurs
More informationBottomUp Parsing. Parser Generation. LR Parsing. Constructing LR Parser
Parser Generation Main Problem: given a grammar G, how to build a topdown parser or a bottomup parser for it? parser : a program that, given a sentence, reconstructs a derivation for that sentence 
More informationMODULE 14 SLR PARSER LR(0) ITEMS
MODULE 14 SLR PARSER LR(0) ITEMS In this module we shall discuss one of the LR type parser namely SLR parser. The various steps involved in the SLR parser will be discussed with a focus on the construction
More informationS Y N T A X A N A L Y S I S LR
LR parsing There are three commonly used algorithms to build tables for an LR parser: 1. SLR(1) = LR(0) plus use of FOLLOW set to select between actions smallest class of grammars smallest tables (number
More informationParser Generation. BottomUp Parsing. Constructing LR Parser. LR Parsing. Construct parse tree bottomup  from leaves to the root
Parser Generation Main Problem: given a grammar G, how to build a topdown parser or a bottomup parser for it? parser : a program that, given a sentence, reconstructs a derivation for that sentence 
More informationPrinciples of Programming Languages
Principles of Programming Languages h"p://www.di.unipi.it/~andrea/dida2ca/plp 14/ Prof. Andrea Corradini Department of Computer Science, Pisa Lesson 8! Bo;om Up Parsing Shi? Reduce LR(0) automata and
More informationContextfree grammars
Contextfree grammars Section 4.2 Formal way of specifying rules about the structure/syntax of a program terminals  tokens nonterminals  represent higherlevel structures of a program start symbol,
More informationPrinciple of Compilers Lecture IV Part 4: Syntactic Analysis. Alessandro Artale
Free University of Bolzano Principles of Compilers Lecture IV Part 4, 2003/2004 AArtale (1) Principle of Compilers Lecture IV Part 4: Syntactic Analysis Alessandro Artale Faculty of Computer Science Free
More informationFormal Languages and Compilers Lecture VII Part 4: Syntactic A
Formal Languages and Compilers Lecture VII Part 4: Syntactic Analysis Free University of BozenBolzano Faculty of Computer Science POS Building, Room: 2.03 artale@inf.unibz.it http://www.inf.unibz.it/
More informationCompiler Construction: Parsing
Compiler Construction: Parsing Mandar Mitra Indian Statistical Institute M. Mitra (ISI) Parsing 1 / 33 Contextfree grammars. Reference: Section 4.2 Formal way of specifying rules about the structure/syntax
More informationLet us construct the LR(1) items for the grammar given below to construct the LALR parsing table.
MODULE 18 LALR parsing After understanding the most powerful CALR parser, in this module we will learn to construct the LALR parser. The CALR parser has a large set of items and hence the LALR parser is
More informationPART 3  SYNTAX ANALYSIS. F. Wotawa TU Graz) Compiler Construction Summer term / 309
PART 3  SYNTAX ANALYSIS F. Wotawa (IST @ TU Graz) Compiler Construction Summer term 2016 64 / 309 Goals Definition of the syntax of a programming language using context free grammars Methods for parsing
More informationFormal Languages and Compilers Lecture VII Part 3: Syntactic A
Formal Languages and Compilers Lecture VII Part 3: Syntactic Analysis Free University of BozenBolzano Faculty of Computer Science POS Building, Room: 2.03 artale@inf.unibz.it http://www.inf.unibz.it/
More informationParsing. Handle, viable prefix, items, closures, goto s LR(k): SLR(1), LR(1), LALR(1)
TD parsing  LL(1) Parsing First and Follow sets Parse table construction BU Parsing Handle, viable prefix, items, closures, goto s LR(k): SLR(1), LR(1), LALR(1) Problems with SLR Aho, Sethi, Ullman, Compilers
More informationUNIT III & IV. Bottom up parsing
UNIT III & IV Bottom up parsing 5.0 Introduction Given a grammar and a sentence belonging to that grammar, if we have to show that the given sentence belongs to the given grammar, there are two methods.
More informationLexical and Syntax Analysis. BottomUp Parsing
Lexical and Syntax Analysis BottomUp Parsing Parsing There are two ways to construct derivation of a grammar. TopDown: begin with start symbol; repeatedly replace an instance of a production s LHS with
More informationCS308 Compiler Principles Syntax Analyzer Li Jiang
CS308 Syntax Analyzer Li Jiang Department of Computer Science and Engineering Shanghai Jiao Tong University Syntax Analyzer Syntax Analyzer creates the syntactic structure of the given source program.
More informationMIT Parse Table Construction. Martin Rinard Laboratory for Computer Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MIT 6.035 Parse Table Construction Martin Rinard Laboratory for Computer Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology Parse Tables (Review) ACTION Goto State ( ) $ X s0 shift to s2 error error goto s1
More informationParsing Wrapup. Roadmap (Where are we?) Last lecture Shiftreduce parser LR(1) parsing. This lecture LR(1) parsing
Parsing Wrapup Roadmap (Where are we?) Last lecture Shiftreduce parser LR(1) parsing LR(1) items Computing closure Computing goto LR(1) canonical collection This lecture LR(1) parsing Building ACTION
More informationSyn S t yn a t x a Ana x lysi y s si 1
Syntax Analysis 1 Position of a Parser in the Compiler Model Source Program Lexical Analyzer Token, tokenval Get next token Parser and rest of frontend Intermediate representation Lexical error Syntax
More informationDownloaded from Page 1. LR Parsing
Downloaded from http://himadri.cmsdu.org Page 1 LR Parsing We first understand Context Free Grammars. Consider the input string: x+2*y When scanned by a scanner, it produces the following stream of tokens:
More informationSyntax Analysis. Amitabha Sanyal. (www.cse.iitb.ac.in/ as) Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay
Syntax Analysis (www.cse.iitb.ac.in/ as) Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay September 2007 College of Engineering, Pune Syntax Analysis: 2/124 Syntax
More informationCSE P 501 Compilers. LR Parsing Hal Perkins Spring UW CSE P 501 Spring 2018 D1
CSE P 501 Compilers LR Parsing Hal Perkins Spring 2018 UW CSE P 501 Spring 2018 D1 Agenda LR Parsing Tabledriven Parsers Parser States ShiftReduce and ReduceReduce conflicts UW CSE P 501 Spring 2018
More informationLR Parsers. Aditi Raste, CCOEW
LR Parsers Aditi Raste, CCOEW 1 LR Parsers Most powerful shiftreduce parsers and yet efficient. LR(k) parsing L : left to right scanning of input R : constructing rightmost derivation in reverse k : number
More informationCompiler Construction 2016/2017 Syntax Analysis
Compiler Construction 2016/2017 Syntax Analysis Peter Thiemann November 2, 2016 Outline 1 Syntax Analysis Recursive topdown parsing Nonrecursive topdown parsing Bottomup parsing Syntax Analysis tokens
More informationSection A. A grammar that produces more than one parse tree for some sentences is said to be ambiguous.
Section A 1. What do you meant by parser and its types? A parser for grammar G is a program that takes as input a string w and produces as output either a parse tree for w, if w is a sentence of G, or
More informationWWW.STUDENTSFOCUS.COM UNIT 3 SYNTAX ANALYSIS 3.1 ROLE OF THE PARSER Parser obtains a string of tokens from the lexical analyzer and verifies that it can be generated by the language for the source program.
More informationCompilers. Bottomup Parsing. (original slides by Sam
Compilers Bottomup Parsing Yannis Smaragdakis U Athens Yannis Smaragdakis, U. Athens (original slides by Sam Guyer@Tufts) BottomUp Parsing More general than topdown parsing And just as efficient Builds
More informationMonday, September 13, Parsers
Parsers Agenda Terminology LL(1) Parsers Overview of LR Parsing Terminology Grammar G = (Vt, Vn, S, P) Vt is the set of terminals Vn is the set of nonterminals S is the start symbol P is the set of productions
More informationEDAN65: Compilers, Lecture 06 A LR parsing. Görel Hedin Revised:
EDAN65: Compilers, Lecture 06 A LR parsing Görel Hedin Revised: 20170911 This lecture Regular expressions Contextfree grammar Attribute grammar Lexical analyzer (scanner) Syntactic analyzer (parser)
More informationLR Parsing, Part 2. Constructing Parse Tables. An NFA Recognizing Viable Prefixes. Computing the Closure. GOTO Function and DFA States
TDDD16 Compilers and Interpreters TDDB44 Compiler Construction LR Parsing, Part 2 Constructing Parse Tables Parse table construction Grammar conflict handling Categories of LR Grammars and Parsers An NFA
More informationCSE 401 Compilers. LR Parsing Hal Perkins Autumn /10/ Hal Perkins & UW CSE D1
CSE 401 Compilers LR Parsing Hal Perkins Autumn 2011 10/10/2011 200211 Hal Perkins & UW CSE D1 Agenda LR Parsing Tabledriven Parsers Parser States ShiftReduce and ReduceReduce conflicts 10/10/2011
More informationSyntax Analysis: Contextfree Grammars, Pushdown Automata and Parsing Part  4. Y.N. Srikant
Syntax Analysis: Contextfree Grammars, Pushdown Automata and Part  4 Department of Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute of Science Bangalore 560 012 NPTEL Course on Principles of Compiler
More informationWednesday, September 9, 15. Parsers
Parsers What is a parser A parser has two jobs: 1) Determine whether a string (program) is valid (think: grammatically correct) 2) Determine the structure of a program (think: diagramming a sentence) Agenda
More informationParsers. Xiaokang Qiu Purdue University. August 31, 2018 ECE 468
Parsers Xiaokang Qiu Purdue University ECE 468 August 31, 2018 What is a parser A parser has two jobs: 1) Determine whether a string (program) is valid (think: grammatically correct) 2) Determine the structure
More informationParsers. What is a parser. Languages. Agenda. Terminology. Languages. A parser has two jobs:
What is a parser Parsers A parser has two jobs: 1) Determine whether a string (program) is valid (think: grammatically correct) 2) Determine the structure of a program (think: diagramming a sentence) Agenda
More informationWednesday, August 31, Parsers
Parsers How do we combine tokens? Combine tokens ( words in a language) to form programs ( sentences in a language) Not all combinations of tokens are correct programs (not all sentences are grammatically
More informationSYNTAX ANALYSIS 1. Define parser. Hierarchical analysis is one in which the tokens are grouped hierarchically into nested collections with collective meaning. Also termed as Parsing. 2. Mention the basic
More informationSyntax Analysis Part I
Syntax Analysis Part I Chapter 4: ContextFree Grammars Slides adapted from : Robert van Engelen, Florida State University Position of a Parser in the Compiler Model Source Program Lexical Analyzer Token,
More informationBottomUp Parsing II. Lecture 8
BottomUp Parsing II Lecture 8 1 Review: ShiftReduce Parsing Bottomup parsing uses two actions: Shift ABC xyz ABCx yz Reduce Cbxy ijk CbA ijk 2 Recall: he Stack Left string can be implemented by a stack
More informationCompiler Design 1. BottomUP Parsing. Goutam Biswas. Lect 6
Compiler Design 1 BottomUP Parsing Compiler Design 2 The Process The parse tree is built starting from the leaf nodes labeled by the terminals (tokens). The parser tries to discover appropriate reductions,
More informationBottomUp Parsing. Lecture 1112
BottomUp Parsing Lecture 1112 (From slides by G. Necula & R. Bodik) 9/22/06 Prof. Hilfinger CS164 Lecture 11 1 BottomUp Parsing Bottomup parsing is more general than topdown parsing And just as efficient
More informationBottomUp Parsing II (Different types of ShiftReduce Conflicts) Lecture 10. Prof. Aiken (Modified by Professor Vijay Ganesh.
BottomUp Parsing II Different types of ShiftReduce Conflicts) Lecture 10 Ganesh. Lecture 10) 1 Review: BottomUp Parsing Bottomup parsing is more general than topdown parsing And just as efficient Doesn
More informationAcknowledgements. The slides for this lecture are a modified versions of the offering by Prof. Sanjeev K Aggarwal
Acknowledgements The slides for this lecture are a modified versions of the offering by Prof. Sanjeev K Aggarwal Syntax Analysis Check syntax and construct abstract syntax tree if == = ; b 0 a b Error
More informationLR Parsing. Leftmost and Rightmost Derivations. Compiler Design CSE 504. Derivations for id + id: T id = id+id. 1 ShiftReduce Parsing.
LR Parsing Compiler Design CSE 504 1 ShiftReduce Parsing 2 LR Parsers 3 SLR and LR(1) Parsers Last modifled: Fri Mar 06 2015 at 13:50:06 EST Version: 1.7 16:58:46 2016/01/29 Compiled at 12:57 on 2016/02/26
More informationChapter 4. Lexical and Syntax Analysis. Topics. Compilation. Language Implementation. Issues in Lexical and Syntax Analysis.
Topics Chapter 4 Lexical and Syntax Analysis Introduction Lexical Analysis Syntax Analysis Recursive Descent Parsing BottomUp parsing 2 Language Implementation Compilation There are three possible approaches
More informationConcepts Introduced in Chapter 4
Concepts Introduced in Chapter 4 Grammars ContextFree Grammars Derivations and Parse Trees Ambiguity, Precedence, and Associativity Top Down Parsing Recursive Descent, LL Bottom Up Parsing SLR, LR, LALR
More informationChapter 4: LR Parsing
Chapter 4: LR Parsing 110 Some definitions Recall For a grammar G, with start symbol S, any string α such that S called a sentential form α is If α Vt, then α is called a sentence in L G Otherwise it is
More informationLR Parsing LALR Parser Generators
LR Parsing LALR Parser Generators Outline Review of bottomup parsing Computing the parsing DFA Using parser generators 2 Bottomup Parsing (Review) A bottomup parser rewrites the input string to the
More informationLecture BottomUp Parsing
Lecture 14+15 BottomUp Parsing CS 241: Foundations of Sequential Programs Winter 2018 Troy Vasiga et al University of Waterloo 1 Example CFG 1. S S 2. S AyB 3. A ab 4. A cd 5. B z 6. B wz 2 Stacks in
More informationReview: ShiftReduce Parsing. Bottomup parsing uses two actions: BottomUp Parsing II. Shift ABC xyz ABCx yz. Lecture 8. Reduce Cbxy ijk CbA ijk
Review: ShiftReduce Parsing Bottomup parsing uses two actions: BottomUp Parsing II Lecture 8 Shift ABC xyz ABCx yz Reduce Cbxy ijk CbA ijk Prof. Aiken CS 13 Lecture 8 1 Prof. Aiken CS 13 Lecture 8 2
More informationCS 4120 Introduction to Compilers
CS 4120 Introduction to Compilers Andrew Myers Cornell University Lecture 6: BottomUp Parsing 9/9/09 Bottomup parsing A more powerful parsing technology LR grammars  more expressive than LL can handle
More informationLecture 7: Deterministic BottomUp Parsing
Lecture 7: Deterministic BottomUp Parsing (From slides by G. Necula & R. Bodik) Last modified: Tue Sep 20 12:50:42 2011 CS164: Lecture #7 1 Avoiding nondeterministic choice: LR We ve been looking at general
More informationshiftreduce parsing
Parsing #2 Bottomup Parsing Rightmost derivations; use of rules from right to left Uses a stack to push symbols the concatenation of the stack symbols with the rest of the input forms a valid bottomup
More informationLecture 8: Deterministic BottomUp Parsing
Lecture 8: Deterministic BottomUp Parsing (From slides by G. Necula & R. Bodik) Last modified: Fri Feb 12 13:02:57 2010 CS164: Lecture #8 1 Avoiding nondeterministic choice: LR We ve been looking at general
More informationBottom Up Parsing. Shift and Reduce. Sentential Form. Handle. Parse Tree. Bottom Up Parsing 9/26/2012. Also known as ShiftReduce parsing
Also known as ShiftReduce parsing More powerful than top down Don t need left factored grammars Can handle left recursion Attempt to construct parse tree from an input string eginning at leaves and working
More informationLR Parsing LALR Parser Generators
Outline LR Parsing LALR Parser Generators Review of bottomup parsing Computing the parsing DFA Using parser generators 2 Bottomup Parsing (Review) A bottomup parser rewrites the input string to the
More informationSimple LR (SLR) LR(0) Drawbacks LR(1) SLR Parse. LR(1) Start State and Reduce. LR(1) Items 10/3/2012
LR(0) Drawbacks Consider the unambiguous augmented grammar: 0.) S E $ 1.) E T + E 2.) E T 3.) T x If we build the LR(0) DFA table, we find that there is a shiftreduce conflict. This arises because the
More informationIn One Slide. Outline. LR Parsing. Table Construction
LR Parsing Table Construction #1 In One Slide An LR(1) parsing table can be constructed automatically from a CFG. An LR(1) item is a pair made up of a production and a lookahead token; it represents a
More information4. Lexical and Syntax Analysis
4. Lexical and Syntax Analysis 4.1 Introduction Language implementation systems must analyze source code, regardless of the specific implementation approach Nearly all syntax analysis is based on a formal
More informationChapter 4. Lexical and Syntax Analysis
Chapter 4 Lexical and Syntax Analysis Chapter 4 Topics Introduction Lexical Analysis The Parsing Problem RecursiveDescent Parsing BottomUp Parsing Copyright 2012 AddisonWesley. All rights reserved.
More informationSyntax Analysis, V Bottomup Parsing & The Magic of Handles Comp 412
Midterm Exam: Thursday October 18, 7PM Herzstein Amphitheater Syntax Analysis, V Bottomup Parsing & The Magic of Handles Comp 412 COMP 412 FALL 2018 source code IR Front End Optimizer Back End IR target
More informationExample CFG. Lectures 16 & 17 BottomUp Parsing. LL(1) Predictor Table Review. Stacks in LR Parsing 1. Sʹ " S. 2. S " AyB. 3. A " ab. 4.
Example CFG Lectures 16 & 17 BottomUp Parsing CS 241: Foundations of Sequential Programs Fall 2016 1. Sʹ " S 2. S " AyB 3. A " ab 4. A " cd Matt Crane University of Waterloo 5. B " z 6. B " wz 2 LL(1)
More information4. Lexical and Syntax Analysis
4. Lexical and Syntax Analysis 4.1 Introduction Language implementation systems must analyze source code, regardless of the specific implementation approach Nearly all syntax analysis is based on a formal
More informationBottomUp Parsing. Lecture 1112
BottomUp Parsing Lecture 1112 (From slides by G. Necula & R. Bodik) 2/20/08 Prof. Hilfinger CS164 Lecture 11 1 Administrivia Test I during class on 10 March. 2/20/08 Prof. Hilfinger CS164 Lecture 11
More informationSLR parsers. LR(0) items
SLR parsers LR(0) items As we have seen, in order to make shiftreduce parsing practical, we need a reasonable way to identify viable prefixes (and so, possible handles). Up to now, it has not been clear
More informationCS143 Handout 20 Summer 2011 July 15 th, 2011 CS143 Practice Midterm and Solution
CS143 Handout 20 Summer 2011 July 15 th, 2011 CS143 Practice Midterm and Solution Exam Facts Format Wednesday, July 20 th from 11:00 a.m. 1:00 p.m. in Gates B01 The exam is designed to take roughly 90
More informationParsing III. CS434 Lecture 8 Spring 2005 Department of Computer Science University of Alabama Joel Jones
Parsing III (Topdown parsing: recursive descent & LL(1) ) (Bottomup parsing) CS434 Lecture 8 Spring 2005 Department of Computer Science University of Alabama Joel Jones Copyright 2003, Keith D. Cooper,
More informationBottomup Parser. Jungsik Choi
Formal Languages and Compiler (CSE322) Bottomup Parser Jungsik Choi chjs@khu.ac.kr * Some slides taken from SKKU SWE3010 (Prof. Hwansoo Han) and TAMU CSCE434500 (Prof. Lawrence Rauchwerger) Bottomup
More informationCSE P 501 Compilers. Parsing & ContextFree Grammars Hal Perkins Winter /15/ Hal Perkins & UW CSE C1
CSE P 501 Compilers Parsing & ContextFree Grammars Hal Perkins Winter 2008 1/15/2008 200208 Hal Perkins & UW CSE C1 Agenda for Today Parsing overview Context free grammars Ambiguous grammars Reading:
More informationCompilation 2012 ContextFree Languages Parsers and Scanners. Jan Midtgaard Michael I. Schwartzbach Aarhus University
Compilation 2012 Parsers and Scanners Jan Midtgaard Michael I. Schwartzbach Aarhus University ContextFree Grammars Example: sentence subject verb object subject person person John Joe Zacharias verb asked
More informationParsing. Rupesh Nasre. CS3300 Compiler Design IIT Madras July 2018
Parsing Rupesh Nasre. CS3300 Compiler Design IIT Madras July 2018 Character stream Lexical Analyzer MachineIndependent Code Code Optimizer F r o n t e n d Token stream Syntax Analyzer Syntax tree Semantic
More informationHow do LL(1) Parsers Build Syntax Trees?
How do LL(1) Parsers Build Syntax Trees? So far our LL(1) parser has acted like a recognizer. It verifies that input token are syntactically correct, but it produces no output. Building complete (concrete)
More informationParsing. Roadmap. > Contextfree grammars > Derivations and precedence > Topdown parsing > Leftrecursion > Lookahead > Tabledriven parsing
Roadmap > Contextfree grammars > Derivations and precedence > Topdown parsing > Leftrecursion > Lookahead > Tabledriven parsing The role of the parser > performs contextfree syntax analysis > guides
More informationCSE 130 Programming Language Principles & Paradigms Lecture # 5. Chapter 4 Lexical and Syntax Analysis
Chapter 4 Lexical and Syntax Analysis Introduction  Language implementation systems must analyze source code, regardless of the specific implementation approach  Nearly all syntax analysis is based on
More informationAction Table for CSXLite. LALR Parser Driver. Example of LALR(1) Parsing. GoTo Table for CSXLite
LALR r Driver Action Table for CSXLite Given the GoTo and parser action tables, a Shift/Reduce (LALR) parser is fairly simple: { S 5 9 5 9 void LALRDriver(){ Push(S ); } R S R R R R5 if S S R S R5 while(true){
More informationVIVA QUESTIONS WITH ANSWERS
VIVA QUESTIONS WITH ANSWERS 1. What is a compiler? A compiler is a program that reads a program written in one language the source language and translates it into an equivalent program in another languagethe
More informationCS 2210 Sample Midterm. 1. Determine if each of the following claims is true (T) or false (F).
CS 2210 Sample Midterm 1. Determine if each of the following claims is true (T) or false (F). F A language consists of a set of strings, its grammar structure, and a set of operations. (Note: a language
More informationAlgorithms for NLP. LR Parsing. Reading: Hopcroft and Ullman, Intro. to Automata Theory, Lang. and Comp. Section , pp.
11711 Algorithms for NL L arsing eading: Hopcroft and Ullman, Intro. to Automata Theory, Lang. and Comp. Section 10.610.7, pp. 248 256 Shifteduce arsing A class of parsers with the following principles:
More informationContextFree Grammars and Parsers. Peter S. Housel January 2001
ContextFree Grammars and Parsers Peter S. Housel January 2001 Copyright This is the Monday grammar library, a set of facilities for representing contextfree grammars and dynamically creating parser automata
More informationCOP4020 Programming Languages. Syntax Prof. Robert van Engelen
COP4020 Programming Languages Syntax Prof. Robert van Engelen Overview n Tokens and regular expressions n Syntax and contextfree grammars n Grammar derivations n More about parse trees n Topdown and
More informationThe Parsing Problem (cont d) RecursiveDescent Parsing. RecursiveDescent Parsing (cont d) ICOM 4036 Programming Languages. The Complexity of Parsing
ICOM 4036 Programming Languages Lexical and Syntax Analysis Lexical Analysis The Parsing Problem RecursiveDescent Parsing BottomUp Parsing This lecture covers review questions 1427 This lecture covers
More informationCS453 : JavaCUP and error recovery. CS453 Shiftreduce Parsing 1
CS453 : JavaCUP and error recovery CS453 Shiftreduce Parsing 1 Shiftreduce parsing in an LR parser LR(k) parser Lefttoright parse Rightmost derivation Ktoken look ahead LR parsing algorithm using
More informationConflicts in LR Parsing and More LR Parsing Types
Conflicts in LR Parsing and More LR Parsing Types Lecture 10 Dr. Sean Peisert ECS 142 Spring 2009 1 Status Project 2 Due Friday, Apr. 24, 11:55pm The usual lecture time is being replaced by a discussion
More informationSyntax Analyzer  Parser
Syntax Analyzer  Parser ASU Textbook Chapter 4.24.9 (w/o error handling) Tsansheng Hsu tshsu@iis.sinica.edu.tw http://www.iis.sinica.edu.tw/~tshsu 1 A program represented by a sequence of tokens
More informationCS415 Compilers. LR Parsing & Error Recovery
CS415 Compilers LR Parsing & Error Recovery These slides are based on slides copyrighted by Keith Cooper, Ken Kennedy & Linda Torczon at Rice University Review: LR(k) items The LR(1) table construction
More informationBottomUp Parsing LR Parsing
BottomUp Parsing LR Parsing Maryam Siahbani 2/19/2016 1 What we need for LR parsing LR0) states: Describe all possible states in which parser can be Parsing table ransition between LR0) states Actions
More informationCS 406/534 Compiler Construction Parsing Part I
CS 406/534 Compiler Construction Parsing Part I Prof. Li Xu Dept. of Computer Science UMass Lowell Fall 2004 Part of the course lecture notes are based on Prof. Keith Cooper, Prof. Ken Kennedy and Dr.
More informationIntroduction to Parsing. Comp 412
COMP 412 FALL 2010 Introduction to Parsing Comp 412 Copyright 2010, Keith D. Cooper & Linda Torczon, all rights reserved. Students enrolled in Comp 412 at Rice University have explicit permission to make
More informationCMSC 330: Organization of Programming Languages
CMSC 330: Organization of Programming Languages Context Free Grammars and Parsing 1 Recall: Architecture of Compilers, Interpreters Source Parser Static Analyzer Intermediate Representation Front End Back
More informationSyntactic Analysis. TopDown Parsing
Syntactic Analysis TopDown Parsing Copyright 2017, Pedro C. Diniz, all rights reserved. Students enrolled in Compilers class at University of Southern California (USC) have explicit permission to make
More informationParsing II Topdown parsing. Comp 412
COMP 412 FALL 2018 Parsing II Topdown parsing Comp 412 source code IR Front End Optimizer Back End IR target code Copyright 2018, Keith D. Cooper & Linda Torczon, all rights reserved. Students enrolled
More informationCSE P 501 Compilers. Parsing & ContextFree Grammars Hal Perkins Spring UW CSE P 501 Spring 2018 C1
CSE P 501 Compilers Parsing & ContextFree Grammars Hal Perkins Spring 2018 UW CSE P 501 Spring 2018 C1 Administrivia Project partner signup: please find a partner and fill out the signup form by noon
More informationECE 573 Midterm 1 September 29, 2009
ECE 573 Midterm 1 September 29, 2009 Name: Purdue email: Please sign the following: I affirm that the answers given on this test are mine and mine alone. I did not receive help from an person or material
More information