Formal Languages and Compilers Lecture VII Part 4: Syntactic A

Size: px
Start display at page:

Transcription

1 Formal Languages and Compilers Lecture VII Part 4: Syntactic Analysis Free University of Bozen-Bolzano Faculty of Computer Science POS Building, Room: artale/ Formal Languages and Compilers BSc course 2017/18 First Semester

2 Summary of Lecture IV Part 4 Inadequacy of SLR Parsing LR(1) Parsing Closure and Goto Operations, Canonical Collection LR(1) Parsing Tables LALR(1) Parsing Conflicts in LALR Parsers LALR(1) Parsing Tables LALR Vs. LR Parsers Dealing with Ambiguous Grammars

3 When SLR is not Adequate Example. Consider the following Grammar and the Canonical Collection: Augmented Grammar S S S L = R S R L R L id R L I 0 : S. S S. L = R S. R L. R L. id R. L I 1 : S S. I 2 : S L. = R R L. I 3 : S R. I 4 : L. R R. L L. R L. id I 5 : L id. I 6 : S L =. R R. L L. R L. id I 7 : L R. I 8 : R L. I 9 : S L = R.

4 When SLR is not Adequate (Cont.) Consider now the set of items in I 2 : 1 If we consider the first item, then, action[2, =] = shift 6. 2 If we consider the second item, since = Follow(R), then, action[2, =] = reduce R L. Shift/Reduce Conflict. There is both a shift and a reduce action thus the entry for action[2, =] is multiply defined! The SLR parsing technique is not powerful enough!

5 Why SLR fails The problem can be modeled as follow: 1 The stack contains the string βα, with α on top; 2 The item set I i contains the item [A α. ]; 3 Lookahead symbol is a, and a Follow(A). Problem. The state s i is on top of the stack BUT reducing with A α is such that βa cannot be followed by a in a right-sentential form. Remark. In general, Follow(A) is not limited to right-most derivations.

6 Why SLR fails: An Example S I 0 I 1 L R * id I 2 I 3 * I 4 = * R L I 6 R I 9 L I 7 I 8 If we are in state I 2 with lookahead = then the stack contains 0L2 with L on top. If we reduce with R L then the stack is 0R3. In state I 3 we can only reduce with S R and lookahead \$. Since the current lookahead is = then the parsing fails: action[3, =] = error, and the parser must Backtrack! id I 5 id

7 Summary Inadequacy of SLR Parsing LR(1) Parsing Closure and Goto Operations, Canonical Collection LR(1) Parsing Tables LALR(1) Parsing Conflicts in LALR Parsers LALR(1) Parsing Tables LALR Vs. LR Parsers Dealing with Ambiguous Grammars

8 Towards LR Parsing: A Solution to SLR failure Add more information in the state to rule out invalid reductions. Each state of an LR(1) Parser indicates what symbol can follow a handle for which there is a possible reduction. Definition. An LR(1) Item is then a pair [A α. β, a], where a V T is called the Lookahead of the Item. Furthermore, a Follow(A).

9 LR(1) Items [A α. β, a] describes a context of the parser: We are trying to find an A followed by an a, and We have α already on top of the stack Thus we need to see next something derivable from βa along right-most derivations. The lookahead has no effect in items of the form [A α. β, a], with β ϵ, BUT On items [A α., a], the parser reduces with A α only if the next input symbol is a.

10 Summary Inadequacy of SLR Parsing LR(1) Parsing Closure and Goto Operations, Canonical Collection LR(1) Parsing Tables LALR(1) Parsing Conflicts in LALR Parsers LALR(1) Parsing Tables LALR Vs. LR Parsers Dealing with Ambiguous Grammars

11 The Closure Operation To construct the Collection of sets of Items we proceed as in the construction of the LR(0) Canonical Collection but with new closure and goto operations. Algorithm. Closure(I). Let I be a set of LR(1) items for an augmented Grammar G, then closure(i ) is a set of items such that: 1 Initially every item in I is added to closure(i); 2 If [A α. Bβ, a] closure(i) and B γ, then we add the item [B. γ, b] to closure(i), where b First(βa). Go to step 1 until no more items can be added to closure(i). Intuition. Considering the addition of the productions involving B the parser must take into account the context of B.

12 The Goto Operation and LR(1) Item Collection Definition. (Goto) If I is a set of items and X is a grammar symbol, then, goto(i, X ) is the closure of the set of all items [A αx. β, a] such that [A α. X β, a] is in I. LR(1) Item Collection. We proceed as in the construction of the LR(0) Canonical Collection but with new closure and goto operations. The initial condition is: C = {closure({[s. S, \$]})}.

13 LR(1) Item Collection: An Example Example. Build the LR(1) Item Collection for the following augmented Grammar: S S S CC C cc d

14 Summary Inadequacy of SLR Parsing LR(1) Parsing Closure and Goto Operations, Canonical Collection LR(1) Parsing Tables LALR(1) Parsing Conflicts in LALR Parsers LALR(1) Parsing Tables LALR Vs. LR Parsers Dealing with Ambiguous Grammars

15 LR(1) Parsing Table Algorithm. LR(1) Parsing Tables Action and Goto. 1 Construct C = {I 0, I 1,..., I n }, the LR(1) item collection for the augmented grammar G. 2 To each item set I i we create a new state s i. Then the action table is: action[s i, a] = shift s j ", if [A α. aβ, b] I i, and goto(i i, a) = I j. action[s i, a] = reduce A α", for all [A α., a] I i. Here A S. action[s i, \$] = accept", if [S S., \$] I i. 3 goto[s i, A] = s j, if goto(i i, A) = I j. 4 All the entries not defined by rules (2) and (3) are made error. 5 The initial state is the one constructed from the closure of [S. S, \$].

16 Canonical LR(1) Parsers The parsing table produced by the above algorithm is called the Canonical LR(1) Parsing Table; A parser using this table is called a Canonical LR(1) Parser; If the table has no multiply-defined entries then the Grammar is called an LR(1) Grammar.

17 Summary Inadequacy of SLR Parsing LR(1) Parsing Closure and Goto Operations, Canonical Collection LR(1) Parsing Tables LALR(1) Parsing Conflicts in LALR Parsers LALR(1) Parsing Tables LALR Vs. LR Parsers Dealing with Ambiguous Grammars

18 LALR Parsers LALR stands for LookAhead-LR Parser. It is often used in practice since the parsing tables are considerably smaller than the canonical LR tables. Main Idea: Merge the states (Item sets) whose items differ only in the lookahead. We say that such states have the same core. (SLR and LALR) Vs. LR. The comparison is in term of size. For a language like Pascal we go from hundreds of states to thousand of states.

19 LALR Parsers: An Example Example. The Grammar: S S S CC C cc d Has items I 3 I 6, I 4 I 7, and I 8 I 9 with the same core. By merging items with the same core we obtain: I 36 : C c. C, c/d/\$ C. cc, c/d/\$ C. d, c/d/\$ I 47 : C d., c/d/\$ I 89 : C cc., c/d/\$ Consider the merged state I 47. The LALR parser will reduce d to C on any input, even in situations where the original LR parser would generate an error! In any case, the LALR parser will communicate the same error but at a later stage.

20 Summary Inadequacy of SLR Parsing LR(1) Parsing Closure and Goto Operations, Canonical Collection LR(1) Parsing Tables LALR(1) Parsing Conflicts in LALR Parsers LALR(1) Parsing Tables LALR Vs. LR Parsers Dealing with Ambiguous Grammars

21 Introducing Conflicts by Merging States Theorem. Starting from an LR(1) Grammar and merging states with the same core we can only introduce reduce/reduce conflicts. We first show that no shift/reduce conflicts are present. Suppose there is a merged state with a shift/reduce conflict on input a: I LALR : A α., a/... B β. aγ, b/ Then, there is an LR(1) state such that: I LR : A α., a B β. aγ, c (for some c)... And I LR presents a shift/reduce conflict on input a. Absurd!

22 Introducing Conflict by Merging States (Cont.) We now show how it is possible to introduce reduce/reduce conflicts. Consider the following LR(1) states: I i : A c., d B c., e I j : A c., e B c., d Neither of these sets generates a conflict, however, their merge: I ij : A c., d/e B c., d/e generates a reduce/reduce conflict on both input d and e. Note. In case of a reduce/reduce conflict the Grammar is no more LALR. Thus, LALR is a simpler Grammar then an LR Grammar.

23 Summary Inadequacy of SLR Parsing LR(1) Parsing Closure and Goto Operations, Canonical Collection LR(1) Parsing Tables LALR(1) Parsing Conflicts in LALR Parsers LALR(1) Parsing Tables LALR Vs. LR Parsers Dealing with Ambiguous Grammars

24 LALR Parsing Table The algorithm we present serves primarily for defining LALR Grammars there are more efficient techniques. Algorithm. LALR(1) Parsing Tables Action and Goto. 1 Construct C = {I 0, I 1,..., I n }, the LR(1) item collection for the augmented grammar G. 2 Find all LR(1) states having the same core and merge them. Let C = {J 0, J 1,..., J m } the resulting item collection. 3 To each item set J i we create a new state s i. Then the action table is constructed as in case of LR(1) parsers. 4 The goto function (and thus, the goto table) is constructed as follows. If J = I 1... I k, then the cores of goto(i 1, X ),...,goto(i k, X ) are all the same. Let K the union of all sets of items having the same core as goto(i 1, X ), i.e., K = i=1,...,k goto(i i, X ), then goto(j, X ) = K.

25 LALR Parsing Table (Cont.) If there is a reduce/reduce conflict in the above construction the Grammar is not LALR(1); The parsing table produced by the above algorithm is called the LALR(1) Parsing Table; A parser using this table is called an LALR(1) Parser.

26 LALR Parser: An Example Example. The Grammar: S S S CC C cc d Has the following LALR(1) Item Collection: C = {I 0, I 1, I 2, I 5, I 36, I 47, I 89 }, where: I 36 : C c. C, c/d/\$ C. cc, c/d/\$ C. d, c/d/\$ I 47 : C d., c/d/\$ I 89 : C cc., c/d/\$ The LALR Parsing Table is: c d \$ S C 0 s36 s acc 2 s36 s s36 s r3 r3 r3 5 r1 89 r2 r2 r2

27 Summary Inadequacy of SLR Parsing LR(1) Parsing Closure and Goto Operations, Canonical Collection LR(1) Parsing Tables LALR(1) Parsing Conflicts in LALR Parsers LALR(1) Parsing Tables LALR Vs. LR Parsers Dealing with Ambiguous Grammars

28 Behavior of LR Vs. LALR On a correct input both parsers make the same sequence of shift and reduce, only the state s names change. On erroneous input the LALR parser makes more moves (reductions) than the LR parser.

29 Behavior of LR Vs. LALR: An Example Example. Consider as input the string ccd. The LR parser will push onto the stack: 0c3c3d4 Ending with an error in state 4 and current input \$. The LALR parser will push onto the stack: 0c36c36d47 State 47 with input \$ reduces with C d and the stack is: 0c36c36C89 State 89 with input \$ reduces with C cc and the stack is: 0c36C89 A similar reduction applies and the stack is: 0C2 Ending finally with an error in state 2 and current input \$.

30 Summary of Lecture IV Part 4 Inadequacy of SLR Parsing LR(1) Parsing Closure and Goto Operations, Canonical Collection LR(1) Parsing Tables LALR(1) Parsing Conflicts in LALR Parsers LALR(1) Parsing Tables LALR Vs. LR Parsers Dealing with Ambiguous Grammars

31 Ambiguous Grammars Ambiguous Grammars provide a shorter and more natural specification. This is reflected by a parser requiring a minor number of states. Ambiguous Grammars are not LR: A parsing table will have multiply-defined entries; A parsing table will contain reduce/reduce and/or shift/reduce conflicts. To deal with ambiguous grammars we use disambiguating rules that eliminate all the conflicts allowing for only one Parse-Tree.

32 Precedence and Associativity Rules The following ambiguous Grammar for arithmetic expressions does not specify the associativity and the precedence of +, : E E + E E E (E) id The unambiguous Grammar: E E+T T T T F F F (E) id Enforces precedence of over +, and left-associativity of + and. Note. The parser for the unambiguous Grammar is less efficient: The time spent for reducing the unit productions E T and T F has the sole function to enforce precedence.

33 Precedence and Associativity Rules (Cont.) Let us consider the following LR(0) items for the ambiguous augmented Grammar (see the Book, Sect. 4.8, for the complete set of states): I 7 : E E + E. I 8 : E E E. E E. +E E E. +E E E. E E E. E Follow(E) = {\$, +, } State I 7 generates a conflict between reduce with E E + E, and shift with input + and. State I 8 generates a conflict between reduce with E E E, and shift with input + and. Both Conflicts can be solved using the Precedence and Associativity for the operations + and.

34 Precedence and Associativity Rules (Cont.) Consider the input id + id id and the following configuration: Stack 0E1 + 4E7 Input id\$ Assuming that takes precedence over +, the parser should shift onto the stack instead of reducing with E E + E. Consider the input id + id + id and the following configuration: Stack 0E1 + 4E7 Input +id\$ Assuming that + is left-associative, the parser should reduce with E E + E instead of shift + onto the stack.

35 Precedence and Associativity Rules (Cont.) Summary. Precedence and Associativity uniquely determine the actions of the parser eliminating the ambiguity: 1 Left-Associativity of +: action(7, +) = reduce with E E + E 2 Left-Associativity of : action(8, ) = reduce with E E E 3 Precedence of over +: action(7, ) = shift 4 Precedence of over +: action(8, +) = reduce with E E E

36 Dangling-Else Ambiguity Consider the following Grammar for IF-THEN-ELSE statements: S S S ises is a Where, i stands for if expr then, e stands for else, and a stands for all other productions. Let us consider the following LR(0) item for this ambiguous Grammar (see the Book for the complete set of states): I 4 : S is. es S is. Follow(S) = {\$, else} Assuming that the stack contains: if expr then stmt (is) with state 4 on top, and the next input is else there is a shift/reduce conflict. Solution. else must match the last if: action(4, else) = shift else. Since Yacc solves shift/reduce conflicts in favor of shift the dangling-else is handled correctly.

37 Summary of Lecture IV Part 4 Inadequacy of SLR Parsing LR(1) Parsing Closure and Goto Operations, Canonical Collection LR(1) Parsing Tables LALR(1) Parsing Conflicts in LALR Parsers LALR(1) Parsing Tables LALR Vs. LR Parsers Dealing with Ambiguous Grammars

Principle 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

Formal Languages and Compilers Lecture VII Part 3: Syntactic A

Formal Languages and Compilers Lecture VII Part 3: Syntactic Analysis Free University of Bozen-Bolzano Faculty of Computer Science POS Building, Room: 2.03 artale@inf.unibz.it http://www.inf.unibz.it/

Compiler Construction: Parsing

Compiler Construction: Parsing Mandar Mitra Indian Statistical Institute M. Mitra (ISI) Parsing 1 / 33 Context-free grammars. Reference: Section 4.2 Formal way of specifying rules about the structure/syntax

S 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

Context-free grammars

Context-free grammars Section 4.2 Formal way of specifying rules about the structure/syntax of a program terminals - tokens non-terminals - represent higher-level structures of a program start symbol,

LALR 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.

Principles 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

Formal Languages and Compilers Lecture V: Parse Trees and Ambiguous Gr

Formal Languages and Compilers Lecture V: Parse Trees and Ambiguous Grammars Free University of Bozen-Bolzano Faculty of Computer Science POS Building, Room: 2.03 artale@inf.unibz.it http://www.inf.unibz.it/

Let 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

Bottom-up parsing. Bottom-Up Parsing. Recall. Goal: For a grammar G, withstartsymbols, any string α such that S α is called a sentential form

Bottom-up parsing Bottom-up 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

3. 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

A left-sentential form is a sentential form that occurs in the leftmost derivation of some sentence.

Bottom-up 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 left-sentential form is a sentential form that occurs

LR Parsing Techniques

LR Parsing Techniques Introduction Bottom-Up Parsing LR Parsing as Handle Pruning Shift-Reduce Parser LR(k) Parsing Model Parsing Table Construction: SLR, LR, LALR 1 Bottom-UP Parsing A bottom-up parser

Lexical and Syntax Analysis. Bottom-Up Parsing

Lexical and Syntax Analysis Bottom-Up Parsing Parsing There are two ways to construct derivation of a grammar. Top-Down: begin with start symbol; repeatedly replace an instance of a production s LHS with

Parsing Wrapup. Roadmap (Where are we?) Last lecture Shift-reduce parser LR(1) parsing. This lecture LR(1) parsing

Parsing Wrapup Roadmap (Where are we?) Last lecture Shift-reduce parser LR(1) parsing LR(1) items Computing closure Computing goto LR(1) canonical collection This lecture LR(1) parsing Building ACTION

Bottom 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

MIT 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

Conflicts 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

LR Parsing LALR Parser Generators

LR Parsing LALR Parser Generators Outline Review of bottom-up parsing Computing the parsing DFA Using parser generators 2 Bottom-up Parsing (Review) A bottom-up parser rewrites the input string to the

Bottom-Up Parsing. Lecture 11-12

Bottom-Up Parsing Lecture 11-12 (From slides by G. Necula & R. Bodik) 9/22/06 Prof. Hilfinger CS164 Lecture 11 1 Bottom-Up Parsing Bottom-up parsing is more general than topdown parsing And just as efficient

LR Parsing LALR Parser Generators

Outline LR Parsing LALR Parser Generators Review of bottom-up parsing Computing the parsing DFA Using parser generators 2 Bottom-up Parsing (Review) A bottom-up parser rewrites the input string to the

In 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

Compiler Construction 2016/2017 Syntax Analysis

Compiler Construction 2016/2017 Syntax Analysis Peter Thiemann November 2, 2016 Outline 1 Syntax Analysis Recursive top-down parsing Nonrecursive top-down parsing Bottom-up parsing Syntax Analysis tokens

LR Parsers Aditi Raste, CCOEW 1 LR Parsers Most powerful shift-reduce parsers and yet efficient. LR(k) parsing L : left to right scanning of input R : constructing rightmost derivation in reverse k : number

Compilers. Bottom-up Parsing. (original slides by Sam

Compilers Bottom-up Parsing Yannis Smaragdakis U Athens Yannis Smaragdakis, U. Athens (original slides by Sam Guyer@Tufts) Bottom-Up Parsing More general than top-down parsing And just as efficient Builds

Parser Generation. Bottom-Up Parsing. Constructing LR Parser. LR Parsing. Construct parse tree bottom-up --- from leaves to the root

Parser Generation Main Problem: given a grammar G, how to build a top-down parser or a bottom-up parser for it? parser : a program that, given a sentence, reconstructs a derivation for that sentence ----

LR Parsing. Leftmost and Rightmost Derivations. Compiler Design CSE 504. Derivations for id + id: T id = id+id. 1 Shift-Reduce Parsing.

LR Parsing Compiler Design CSE 504 1 Shift-Reduce 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

Parsing. 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

LR Parsing Techniques

LR Parsing Techniques Bottom-Up Parsing - LR: a special form of BU Parser LR Parsing as Handle Pruning Shift-Reduce Parser (LR Implementation) LR(k) Parsing Model - k lookaheads to determine next action

Simple 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 shift-reduce conflict. This arises because the

MODULE 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

UNIT-III BOTTOM-UP PARSING

UNIT-III BOTTOM-UP PARSING Constructing a parse tree for an input string beginning at the leaves and going towards the root is called bottom-up parsing. A general type of bottom-up parser is a shift-reduce

Table-driven using an explicit stack (no recursion!). Stack can be viewed as containing both terminals and non-terminals.

Bottom-up Parsing: Table-driven using an explicit stack (no recursion!). Stack can be viewed as containing both terminals and non-terminals. Basic operation is to shift terminals from the input to the

Syntax Analyzer --- Parser

Syntax Analyzer --- Parser ASU Textbook Chapter 4.2--4.9 (w/o error handling) Tsan-sheng Hsu tshsu@iis.sinica.edu.tw http://www.iis.sinica.edu.tw/~tshsu 1 A program represented by a sequence of tokens

Syntax 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

Monday, 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 non-terminals S is the start symbol P is the set of productions

WWW.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.

SYNTAX 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

Compiler Design 1. Bottom-UP Parsing. Goutam Biswas. Lect 6

Compiler Design 1 Bottom-UP 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,

Parsers. 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

Wednesday, 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

Bottom-Up Parsing. Parser Generation. LR Parsing. Constructing LR Parser

Parser Generation Main Problem: given a grammar G, how to build a top-down parser or a bottom-up parser for it? parser : a program that, given a sentence, reconstructs a derivation for that sentence ----

Lecture 8: Deterministic Bottom-Up Parsing

Lecture 8: Deterministic Bottom-Up 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

Wednesday, 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

Parsers. 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

Lecture Bottom-Up Parsing

Lecture 14+15 Bottom-Up 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

Lecture 7: Deterministic Bottom-Up Parsing

Lecture 7: Deterministic Bottom-Up 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

EDAN65: Compilers, Lecture 06 A LR parsing. Görel Hedin Revised:

EDAN65: Compilers, Lecture 06 A LR parsing Görel Hedin Revised: 2017-09-11 This lecture Regular expressions Context-free grammar Attribute grammar Lexical analyzer (scanner) Syntactic analyzer (parser)

Lecture 14: Parser Conflicts, Using Ambiguity, Error Recovery. Last modified: Mon Feb 23 10:05: CS164: Lecture #14 1

Lecture 14: Parser Conflicts, Using Ambiguity, Error Recovery Last modified: Mon Feb 23 10:05:56 2015 CS164: Lecture #14 1 Shift/Reduce Conflicts If a DFA state contains both [X: α aβ, b] and [Y: γ, a],

Bottom-Up Parsing. Lecture 11-12

Bottom-Up Parsing Lecture 11-12 (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

UNIT 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.

Concepts Introduced in Chapter 4

Concepts Introduced in Chapter 4 Grammars Context-Free Grammars Derivations and Parse Trees Ambiguity, Precedence, and Associativity Top Down Parsing Recursive Descent, LL Bottom Up Parsing SLR, LR, LALR

SLR parsers. LR(0) items

SLR parsers LR(0) items As we have seen, in order to make shift-reduce parsing practical, we need a reasonable way to identify viable prefixes (and so, possible handles). Up to now, it has not been clear

LR Parsing. Table Construction

#1 LR Parsing Table Construction #2 Outline Review of bottom-up parsing Computing the parsing DFA Closures, LR(1) Items, States Transitions Using parser generators Handling Conflicts #3 In One Slide An

LR(0) Parsing Summary. LR(0) Parsing Table. LR(0) Limitations. A Non-LR(0) Grammar. LR(0) Parsing Table CS412/CS413

LR(0) Parsing ummary C412/C41 Introduction to Compilers Tim Teitelbaum Lecture 10: LR Parsing February 12, 2007 LR(0) item = a production with a dot in RH LR(0) state = set of LR(0) items valid for viable

PART 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

Bottom Up Parsing. Shift and Reduce. Sentential Form. Handle. Parse Tree. Bottom Up Parsing 9/26/2012. Also known as Shift-Reduce parsing

Also known as Shift-Reduce 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

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:

How 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)

LR 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

CSE P 501 Compilers. LR Parsing Hal Perkins Spring UW CSE P 501 Spring 2018 D-1

CSE P 501 Compilers LR Parsing Hal Perkins Spring 2018 UW CSE P 501 Spring 2018 D-1 Agenda LR Parsing Table-driven Parsers Parser States Shift-Reduce and Reduce-Reduce conflicts UW CSE P 501 Spring 2018

CS 314 Principles of Programming Languages

CS 314 Principles of Programming Languages Lecture 5: Syntax Analysis (Parsing) Zheng (Eddy) Zhang Rutgers University January 31, 2018 Class Information Homework 1 is being graded now. The sample solution

Acknowledgements. 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

Bottom-Up Parsing II (Different types of Shift-Reduce Conflicts) Lecture 10. Prof. Aiken (Modified by Professor Vijay Ganesh.

Bottom-Up Parsing II Different types of Shift-Reduce Conflicts) Lecture 10 Ganesh. Lecture 10) 1 Review: Bottom-Up Parsing Bottom-up parsing is more general than topdown parsing And just as efficient Doesn

Bottom-Up Parsing LR Parsing

Bottom-Up 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

CS415 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

CSE 401 Compilers. LR Parsing Hal Perkins Autumn /10/ Hal Perkins & UW CSE D-1

CSE 401 Compilers LR Parsing Hal Perkins Autumn 2011 10/10/2011 2002-11 Hal Perkins & UW CSE D-1 Agenda LR Parsing Table-driven Parsers Parser States Shift-Reduce and Reduce-Reduce conflicts 10/10/2011

Review: Shift-Reduce Parsing. Bottom-up parsing uses two actions: Bottom-Up Parsing II. Shift ABC xyz ABCx yz. Lecture 8. Reduce Cbxy ijk CbA ijk

Review: Shift-Reduce Parsing Bottom-up parsing uses two actions: Bottom-Up 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

Bottom up parsing. General idea LR(0) SLR LR(1) LALR To best exploit JavaCUP, should understand the theoretical basis (LR parsing);

Bottom up parsing General idea LR(0) SLR LR(1) LALR To best exploit JavaCUP, should understand the theoretical basis (LR parsing); 1 Top-down vs Bottom-up Bottom-up more powerful than top-down; Can process

Bottom-Up Parsing II. Lecture 8

Bottom-Up Parsing II Lecture 8 1 Review: Shift-Reduce Parsing Bottom-up 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

CS 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

Parsing. Rupesh Nasre. CS3300 Compiler Design IIT Madras July 2018

Parsing Rupesh Nasre. CS3300 Compiler Design IIT Madras July 2018 Character stream Lexical Analyzer Machine-Independent Code Code Optimizer F r o n t e n d Token stream Syntax Analyzer Syntax tree Semantic

Section 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

shift-reduce parsing

Parsing #2 Bottom-up 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 bottom-up

CS308 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.

LR Parsing - Conflicts

LR Parsing - Conflicts Lecture 15 Sections 4.5, 4.6 Robb T. Koether Hampden-Sydney College Fri, Feb 20, 2015 Robb T. Koether (Hampden-Sydney College) LR Parsing - Conflicts Fri, Feb 20, 2015 1 / 15 1 Shift/Reduce

CSE302: Compiler Design

CSE302: Compiler Design Instructor: Dr. Liang Cheng Department of Computer Science and Engineering P.C. Rossin College of Engineering & Applied Science Lehigh University March 20, 2007 Outline Recap LR(0)

LR Parsing - The Items

LR Parsing - The Items Lecture 10 Sections 4.5, 4.7 Robb T. Koether Hampden-Sydney College Fri, Feb 13, 2015 Robb T. Koether (Hampden-Sydney College) LR Parsing - The Items Fri, Feb 13, 2015 1 / 31 1 LR

More Bottom-Up Parsing

More Bottom-Up Parsing Lecture 7 Dr. Sean Peisert ECS 142 Spring 2009 1 Status Project 1 Back By Wednesday (ish) savior lexer in ~cs142/s09/bin Project 2 Due Friday, Apr. 24, 11:55pm My office hours 3pm

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 language-the

CS453 : JavaCUP and error recovery. CS453 Shift-reduce Parsing 1

CS453 : JavaCUP and error recovery CS453 Shift-reduce Parsing 1 Shift-reduce parsing in an LR parser LR(k) parser Left-to-right parse Right-most derivation K-token look ahead LR parsing algorithm using

Example CFG. Lectures 16 & 17 Bottom-Up 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 Bottom-Up 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)

Configuration Sets for CSX- Lite. Parser Action Table

Configuration Sets for CSX- Lite State s 6 s 7 Cofiguration Set Prog { Stmts } Eof Stmts Stmt Stmts State s s Cofiguration Set Prog { Stmts } Eof Prog { Stmts } Eof Stmts Stmt Stmts Stmts λ Stmt if ( Expr

4. 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

The analysis part breaks up the source program into constituent pieces and creates an intermediate representation of the source program.

COMPILER DESIGN 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 language-the target

LALR stands for look ahead left right. It is a technique for deciding when reductions have to be made in shift/reduce parsing. Often, it can make the

LALR parsing 1 LALR stands for look ahead left right. It is a technique for deciding when reductions have to be made in shift/reduce parsing. Often, it can make the decisions without using a look ahead.

4. 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

COMPILER (CSE 4120) (Lecture 6: Parsing 4 Bottom-up Parsing )

COMPILR (CS 4120) (Lecture 6: Parsing 4 Bottom-up Parsing ) Sungwon Jung Mobile Computing & Data ngineering Lab Dept. of Computer Science and ngineering Sogang University Seoul, Korea Tel: +82-2-705-8930

Lecture Notes on Bottom-Up LR Parsing

Lecture Notes on Bottom-Up LR Parsing 15-411: Compiler Design Frank Pfenning Lecture 9 1 Introduction In this lecture we discuss a second parsing algorithm that traverses the input string from left to

Action Table for CSX-Lite. LALR Parser Driver. Example of LALR(1) Parsing. GoTo Table for CSX-Lite

LALR r Driver Action Table for CSX-Lite 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){

Review of CFGs and Parsing II Bottom-up Parsers. Lecture 5. Review slides 1

Review of CFGs and Parsing II Bottom-up Parsers Lecture 5 1 Outline Parser Overview op-down Parsers (Covered largely through labs) Bottom-up Parsers 2 he Functionality of the Parser Input: sequence of

Compilation 2013 Parser Generators, Conflict Management, and ML-Yacc

Compilation 2013 Parser Generators, Conflict Management, and ML-Yacc Erik Ernst Aarhus University Parser generators, ML-Yacc LR parsers are tedious to write, but can be generated, e.g., by ML-Yacc Input:

Building Compilers with Phoenix

Building Compilers with Phoenix Syntax-Directed Translation Structure of a Compiler Character Stream Intermediate Representation Lexical Analyzer Machine-Independent Optimizer token stream Intermediate

Formal Languages and Compilers Lecture IV: Regular Languages and Finite. Finite Automata

Formal Languages and Compilers Lecture IV: Regular Languages and Finite Automata Free University of Bozen-Bolzano Faculty of Computer Science POS Building, Room: 2.03 artale@inf.unibz.it http://www.inf.unibz.it/

Lecture Notes on Bottom-Up LR Parsing

Lecture Notes on Bottom-Up LR Parsing 15-411: Compiler Design Frank Pfenning Lecture 9 September 23, 2009 1 Introduction In this lecture we discuss a second parsing algorithm that traverses the input string

COP4020 Programming Languages. Syntax Prof. Robert van Engelen

COP4020 Programming Languages Syntax Prof. Robert van Engelen Overview n Tokens and regular expressions n Syntax and context-free grammars n Grammar derivations n More about parse trees n Top-down and

EXAM. CS331 Compiler Design Spring Please read all instructions, including these, carefully

EXAM Please read all instructions, including these, carefully There are 7 questions on the exam, with multiple parts. You have 3 hours to work on the exam. The exam is open book, open notes. Please write

Syn 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 front-end Intermediate representation Lexical error Syntax