Part 4 Syntax Analysis

234
Part 4 Syntax Analysis

description

Part 4 Syntax Analysis. < sentence >       . E.g. “young men like pop music”. Lexical Analyzer. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Part 4 Syntax Analysis

Page 1: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Part 4 Syntax Analysis

Page 2: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

E.g.

<sentence> <Subject><Predicate> <Subject> <adjective><noun>

<Subject> <noun>

<Predicate> <verb><Object>

<Object> <adjective><noun>

<Object> <noun>

Page 3: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

“young men like pop music”

Lexical Analyzer

“(adjective, ) (noum, ) (verb, ) (adjective, ) (noum, )”

<sentence> <Subject><Predicate> <adjective><noun><Predicate> <adjective><noun>< verb><object> <adjective><noun>< verb>< adjective><noun>

Leftmost Derivation

Rightmost Reduction

????

Page 4: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

<adjective><noun>< verb>< adjective><noun><Subject >< verb>< adjective><noun> <Subject >< verb>< object> <Subject><Predicate> <sentence>

Leftmost Reduction

Page 5: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

How can I design and code the “derivation” or “reduction”?

Page 6: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

6

1 、 The syntax description of programming language constructs

– Context-free grammars

0 Approaches to implement a Syntax analyzer

What is the definition of Context-free grammars?

Please recall it!

Page 7: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

2 、 Why a grammar is usually used to describe the syntax of a programming language?– A grammar gives a precise ,yet easy-to-

understand, syntactic specification of a programming language

– From certain classes of grammar we can automatically construct an efficient parser that determines if a source program is syntactically well formed

Page 8: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

– A properly designed grammar imparts a structure to a programming language that is useful for the translation of source programs into correct object code and for the detection of errors

– The evolved constructs can be added to a language more easily

Page 9: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

3 、 Approached to implement a syntax analyzer

– Manual construction

– Construction by tools

Page 10: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

4.1 The Role of the Parser

1 、 Main task– Obtain a string of tokens from the lexical analy

zer– Verify that the string can be generated by the gr

ammar of related programming language– Report any syntax errors in an intelligible fashi

on– Recover from commonly occurring errors so th

at it can continue processing the remainder of its input

Page 11: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

2 、 Position of parser in compiler model

Lexical analyzer

Parser

Symbol table

Source program

token

Get next token

Parse tree

Rest of front end

Intermediate representation

Page 12: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

3、Parsing methods

(1)Top-Down

(2)Bottom-Up

Page 13: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

4 、 Syntax Error handling 1) Error levels

– Lexical, such as misspelling an identifier, keyword, or operator

– Syntactic, such as an arithmetic expression with unbalanced parentheses

– Semantic, such as an operator applied to an incompatible operand

– Logical, such as an infinitely recursive call

Page 14: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

2) Simple-to-state goals of the error handler

– It should report the presence of errors clearly and accurately

– It should recover from each error quickly enough to be able to detect subsequent errors

– It should not significantly slow down the processing of correct programs

Page 15: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

3) Error-recovery strategies– Panic mode

• Discard input symbols one at a time until one of a designated set of synchronizing tokens is found

– Phrase level• Replace a prefix of the remaining input by

some string that allows the parser to continue

Page 16: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Simple Instruction of Top-Down and Bottom-UpSimple Instruction of Top-Down and Bottom-Up

Top-Down:(1)Left-most derivationSxAy x*yParser Tree

Bottom-Up:(1)Left-most reductionx*y xAyParser Tree

E.g. 1) S xAy 2) A ** 3)A *, and Verify “x*y”

S

x A y

*

How codes?

Page 17: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

PD

A

Model

controllerrules

x * y #

outputS#

Top-Down Bottom-Up

controllerrules

x * y #

output#

1) S xAy 2) A ** 3)A *,

1,3 3,1

? ?Sentential form

String

Page 18: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

T-D PDA Controller IF “x” is the top symbol of the sta

ck and is non-terminal , then find a production rule as “x……” randomly , replace “x” with the right of the rule , and output the No of the rule——derivation 。

IF “x” is the top symbol of the stack and is same to that under the reading point , then… ——Matching 。

IF (2) fail, then make a backtracking action to the scene before the last derivation and select a new rule —backtracking

IF there no new rule, fail IF there is only “ #” in the stac

k , and “ #” is under the reading point , success

B-U PDA Controller• IF the several top symbols in stack is

a Handling, then reduction,

• else if “ #” is under the reading point then fail, else Move the symbol under reading point into stack.

• IF there is only #S in the stack ,and “ #” is under the reading point , success

C

ontroller

Page 19: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

E.G.

controllerrules

x * y #

outputS#

controllerrules

x * y #

output#

Page 20: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

E.G.

controllerrules

x * y #

1

xAy#

controllerrules

x * y #

outputx#

Page 21: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

E.G.

controllerrules

x * y #

1

Ay#

controllerrules

x * y #

output*x#

Page 22: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

E.G.

controllerrules

x * y #

1,2

**y#

controllerrules

x * y #

3Ax#

Page 23: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

E.G.

controllerrules

x * y #

1,2

*y#

controllerrules

x * y #

3

yAx#

Page 24: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

E.G.

controllerrules

x * y #

1

Ay#

controllerrules

x * y #

3,1S#

Page 25: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

E.G.

controllerrules

x * y #

1,3

*y#

controllerrules

x * y #

3,1S#

Page 26: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

E.G.

controllerrules

x * y #

1,3

y#

controllerrules

x * y #

3,1S#

Page 27: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

E.G.

controllerrules

x * y #

1,3

#controllerrules

x * y #

3,1S#

Page 28: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Discussion

Flaw of T-D Left Recursion Infinite

loop

Eliminating Left Recursion Backtracking inefficient

1. Methods: Predictive and Eliminating Ambiguity

2. Left common factor

Flaw of B-U

• Next

Page 29: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

4. 2 TOP-DOWN PARSING

1 、 Ideas

Find a leftmost derivation for an input string

Construct a parse tree for the input starting from the root and creating the nodes of the parse tree in preorder.

E (E) (E+E) (E*E+E) ( i*E+E) ( i*i+E) ( i* i+ i)

E

( E )

E + E

E * E i

i i

Page 30: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

2 、 Main methods

– Predictive parsing (no backtracking)

– Recursive descent (involve backtracking)

Page 31: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

3 、 Recursive descent

– A deducing procedure, which construct a parse tree for the string top-down from S. When there is any mismatch, the program go back to the nearest non-terminal, select another production to construct the parse tree

– If you produce a parse tree at last, then the parsing is success, otherwise, fail.

Page 32: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Grammar for Parsing Example

Start Expr

Expr Expr + Term

Expr Expr - Term

Expr Term

Term Term * Int

Term Term / Int

Term Int

• Set of tokens is { +, -, *, /, Int },

where Int = [0-9][0-9]*

Page 33: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Start<int,><-,><int, ><*,><int, >

Start

Current Position in Parse Tree

Parsing Example

Parse Tree Remaining Input

Sentential form

Applied Production

Page 34: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Start Expr

Start

Parse Tree

Sentential Form

Remaining Input

<int,><-,><int, ><*,><int, >

Expr

Expr

Current Position in Parse Tree

Parsing Example

Page 35: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Applied Production

Expr Expr - Term

Parse Tree

Sentential Form

Remaining Input

<int,><-,><int, ><*,><int, >

Expr - Term

Start

Expr

TermExpr -

Parsing Example

Expr Expr + Term

Expr Expr - Term

Expr Term

Page 36: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Applied Production

Expr Term

Start

Parse Tree

Sentential Form

Remaining Input

<int,><-,><int, ><*,><int, >

Term - Term

Expr

TermExpr -

Term

Parsing Example

Expr Expr + Term

Expr Expr - Term

Expr Term

Page 37: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Applied Production

Term Int

Start

Parse Tree

Sentential Form

Remaining Input

<int,><-,><int, ><*,><int, >

Expr

TermExpr -

Term

Int

Int - Term

Parsing Example

Page 38: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Start

Parse Tree

Sentential Form

Remaining Input

<int,><-,><int, ><*,><int, >

Int - Term

Expr

TermExpr -

Term

MatchInput Token!

Int

Parsing Example

Page 39: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Start

Parse Tree

Sentential Form

Remaining Input

<-,><int, ><*,><int, >

- Term

Expr

TermExpr -

Term

MatchInput Token!

Int

Parsing Example

Page 40: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Start

Parse Tree

Sentential Form

Remaining Input

<int, ><*,><int, >

Term

Expr

TermExpr -

Term

MatchInput Token!

Int

Parsing Example

Page 41: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Applied Production

Term Term * Int

Start

Parse Tree

Sentential Form

Remaining Input

<int, ><*,><int, >

Term*Int

Expr

TermExpr -

TermTerm Int*

Int

Parsing Example

Page 42: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Applied Production

Term Int

Start

Parse Tree

Sentential Form

Remaining Input

<int, ><*,><int, >

Int * Int

Expr

TermExpr -

TermTerm Int*

Int Int

Parsing Example

Page 43: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

MatchInput Token!

Start

Parse Tree

Sentential Form

Remaining Input

<int, ><*,><int, >

Int* Int

Expr

TermExpr -

TermTerm Int*

Int Int

Parsing Example

Page 44: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

MatchInput Token!

Start

Parse Tree

Sentential Form

Remaining Input

<*,><int, >

* Int

Expr

TermExpr -

TermTerm Int*

Int Int

Parsing Example

Page 45: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

MatchInput Token!

Start

Parse Tree

Sentential Form

Remaining Input

<int, >

Int

Expr

TermExpr -

TermTerm Int*

Int Int

Parsing Example

Page 46: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Parsing Example

Start

Parse Tree

Sentential Form

Remaining Input

<int, >

Expr

TermExpr -

TermTerm Int *

Int Int

ParseComplete!

Page 47: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Backtracking Example

Start<int,><-,><int, ><*,><int, >

Start

Page 48: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Start Expr

Backtracking Example

Start<int,><-,><int, ><*,><int, >

Expr

Page 49: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Expr Expr + Term

Backtracking Example

StartParse Tree

Sentential Form

<int,><-,><int, ><*,><int, >

Expr + Term

Expr

TermExpr +

Page 50: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Applied Production

Expr Term

Backtracking Example

StartParse Tree

Sentential Form

Remaining Input

<int,><-,><int, ><*,><int, >

Term + Term

Expr

TermExpr +

Term

Page 51: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Applied Production

Term Int

Backtracking Example

StartParse Tree

Sentential Form

Remaining Input

<int,><-,><int, ><*,><int, >

Int + Term

Expr

TermExpr +

Term

Int

MatchInput

Token!

Page 52: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Applied Production

Term Int

Backtracking Example

StartParse Tree

Sentential Form

Remaining Input

<-,><int, ><*,><int, >

Int - Term

Expr

TermExpr +

Term

Int 2

Can’tMatchInput

Token!

Page 53: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Applied Production

Start Expr

Backtracking Example

StartParse Tree

Sentential Form

Remaining Input

<int,><-,><int, ><*,><int, >

Expr

Expr

SoBacktrack!

Page 54: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Applied Production

Expr Expr - Term

Backtracking Example

StartParse Tree

Sentential Form

Remaining Input

<int,><-,><int, ><*,><int, >

Expr - Term

Expr

TermExpr -

Page 55: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

TermApplied Production

Expr Term

Backtracking Example

StartParse Tree

Sentential Form

Remaining Input

<int,><-,><int, ><*,><int, >

Term - Term

Expr

TermExpr -

Page 56: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

TermApplied Production

Term Int

Backtracking Example

StartParse Tree

Sentential Form

Remaining Input

<-,><int, ><*,><int, >

Int - Term

Expr

TermExpr -

Int

Page 57: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

MatchInput

Token!

Term

Backtracking Example

StartParse Tree

Sentential Form

Remaining Input

<-,><int, ><*,><int, >

Int - Term

Expr

TermExpr -

Int

Page 58: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

MatchInput

Token!

Term

Backtracking Example

StartParse Tree

Sentential Form

Remaining Input

<int, ><*,><int, >

Int - Term

Expr

TermExpr -

Int

Page 59: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Control partProduction rules

a+b……#

输出带S#

How to code that? PDA models

Page 60: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Runing( 1 ) if “x” is the top symbol of the stack and is non-terminal , then find a production rule as “x……”randomly , replace “x” with the right of the rule , and output the No of the rule——derivation 。( 2 ) if “x” is the top symbol of the stack and is same to that under the reading point , then… ——Matching 。( 3 ) if (2) fail, then make a backtracking action to the scene before the last derivation and select a new rule —backtracking(4) If there no new rule, fail

( 5 ) if there is only “ #” in the stack , and “ #” is under the reading point , success

Page 61: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

E.g. 1) S xAy 2) A ** 3)A *

controllerProduction rules

x * y #

outputS#

Page 62: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

x * y #

S#

E.g. 1) S xAy 2) A ** 3)A *

Page 63: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

1) S xAy

2) A ** 3)A *

x * y #

1

xAy#

Page 64: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

1) S xAy

2) A ** 3)A *

x * y #

1Ay#

Page 65: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

1) S xAy

2) A ** 3)A *

x * y #

1,2**y#

Page 66: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

1) S xAy

2) A ** 3)A *

x * y #

1,2*y#

Page 67: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

1) S xAy

2) A ** 3)A *

x * y #

1Ay#

Page 68: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

1) S xAy

2) A ** 3)A *

x * y #

1,3*y#

Page 69: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

1) S xAy

2) A ** 3)A *

x * y #

1,3y#

Page 70: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Left Recursion + Top-Down Parsing = Infinite Loop

• Example Production: Term Term*Num

• Potential parsing steps:

Term

Num*Term

Term

Term

Num*Term

Term

Num*

Page 71: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Backtracking parsers are not seen frequently, because:

• Backtracking is not very efficient.

A left-recursive grammar can cause a recursive-descent parser to go into an infinite loop.An ambiguity grammar can cause backtrackingLeft factor can also cause a backtracking

Why backtracking occurred?

Page 72: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

4 、 Elimination of Left Recursion

1)Basic form of left recursion

Left recursion is the grammar contains the following kind of productions.

• P P| Immediate recursion

or

• P Aa , APb Indirect recursion

Page 73: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

2)Strategy for elimination of Left Recursion

Convert left recursion into the equivalent right recursion

P P|

=> P->*

=> P P’ P’ P’|

Page 74: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

3)Algorithm

(1) Elimination of immediate left recursion

P P|

=> P->*

=> P P’ P’ P’| (2) Elimination of indirect left recursion

Convert it into immediate left recursion first according to specific order, then eliminate the related immediate left recursion

Page 75: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Algorithm:– (1)Arrange the non-terminals in G in some order as P1,P2,…,

Pn, do step 2 for each of them.– (2) for (i=1,i<=n,i++)

{for (k=1,k<=i-1,k++)

{replace each production of the form Pi Pk by Pi 1 | 2 |……| ,n ;

where Pk 1| 2|……| ,n are all the current Pk -productions

}

change Pi Pi1| Pi2|…. | Pim|1| 2|….| n

into Pi 1 Pi `| 2 Pi `|……| n Pi `

Pi`1Pi`|2Pi`|……| mPi`| } /*eliminate the immediate left recursion*/ (3)Simplify the grammar.

Page 76: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

E.g. Eliminating all left recursion in the following grammar:

(1) S Qc|c (2)Q Rb|b (3) R Sa|aAnswer: 1)Arrange the non-terminals in the order:R,Q,S 2 ) for R: no actions. for Q:Q Rb|b Q Sab|ab|b for S: S Qc|c S Sabc|abc|bc|c; then get S (abc|bc|c)S` S` abcS`| 3) Because R,Q is not reachable, so delete them so, the grammar is : S (abc|bc|c)S`

S` abcS`|

Page 77: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

5 、 Eliminating Ambiguity of a grammar– Rewriting the grammar stmtif expr then stmt|if expr then stmt else st

mt|other==> stmt matched-stmt|unmatched-stmtmatched-stmt if expr then matched-stmt else

matched-stmt|otherunmatched-stmt if expr then stmt|if expr the

n matched-stmt else unmatched-stmt

Page 78: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

6 、 Left factoring

– A grammar transformation that is useful for producing a grammar suitable for predictive parsing

– Rewrite the productions to defer the decision until we have seen enough of the input to make right choice

Page 79: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

If the grammar contains the productions like A1| 2|…. | n

Chang them into AA`

A`1|2|…. |n

Page 80: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

7 、 Predictive Parsers Methods

– Transition diagram based predictive parser

– Non-recursive predictive parser

Page 81: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

8 、 Transition diagram based Predictive Parsers

1) Transition diagram– create an initial and final(return) state– for each production AX1X2…Xn, create a p

ath from initial to the final state, with edges labeled X1,X2,..,Xn

Page 82: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Note: (1)There is one diagram for each non-terminal;

(2)The labels of edges are tokens or non-terminals;

(3)If the edge is labeled by a non-terminal A, the parser instead goes to the start state for A, without moving the input cursor

(4)When an edge labeled by a non-terminal is followed, a potentially recursive procedure call is made

Page 83: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

2) Transition diagram based predictive parsing • Begins in the start state for the start symbol;• When it is in state s with an edge labeled by terminal

a to state t, and the next input symbol is a, then the parser moves the input cursor and goes to state t

• When it is in state s with an edge labeled by non-terminal A to state t, then the parser instead goes to the start state for A, without moving the input cursor. If it ever reaches the final state for A, it immediately goes to state t, in effect having read A from the input during the time it moved from state s to t.

Page 84: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

9 、 Non-recursive Predictive Parsing

1) key problem in predictive parsing

• Determining the production to be applied for a non-terminal

2)Basic idea of the parser

Table-driven and use stack

Page 85: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Predictive Parsing ProgramParsing Table M

a+b……#

Output S#

Input

Stack

3) Model of a non-recursive predictive parser

Page 86: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

4) Predictive Parsing Program

X: the symbol on top of the stack;

a: the current input symbol

If X=a=#, the parser halts and announces successful completion of parsing;

If X=a!=#, the parser pops X off the stack and advances the input pointer to the next input symbol;

Page 87: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

If X is a non-terminal, the program consults entry M[X,a] of the parsing table M. This entry will be either an X-production of the grammar or an error entry.

Page 88: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

E.g. Consider the following grammar, and parse the string id+id*id#

1.E TE` 2.E` +TE`

3.E` 4.T FT`

5.T` *FT` 6.T` 7.F id 8.F (E)

Page 89: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Parsing table M

id + * ( ) #

E ETE` ETE`

E` E` +TE`

E`ε E`ε

T TFT` TFT`

T` T`ε T` *FT`

T`ε T`ε

F F i F (E)

Page 90: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Predictive Parsing ProgramParsing Table M

id+id*id#

E#

Please Write down the procedure of analysis!

Page 91: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

10 、 Construction of a predictive parser

1) FIRST & FOLLOW

FIRST:

• If is any string of grammar symbols, let FIRST() be the set of terminals that begin the string derived from .

• If , then is also in FIRST()

• That is :

V*, First() = {a| a……,a VT

}

+

Page 92: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

FOLLOW:

• For non-terminal A, to be the set of terminals a that can appear immediately to the right of A in some sentential form.

• That is: Follow(A) = {a|S …Aa…,a VT }

If S…A, then # FOLLOW(A) 。

Page 93: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

2) Computing FIRST()

(1)to compute FIRST(X) for all grammar symbols X

• If X is terminal, then FIRST(X) is {X}.

• If X is a production, then add to FIRST(X).

• If Xa is a production, then add a to FIRST(X).

• If X is non-terminal, and X Y1Y2…Yk , Yj(VNVT),1j k, then

Page 94: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

{ j=1; FIRST(X)={}; //initiate

while ( j<k and FIRST(Yj)) {

FIRST(X)=FIRST(X)(FIRST(Yj)-{}) j=j+1 }

IF (j=k and FIRST(Yk)) FIRST(X)=FIRST(X) {} }

Page 95: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

(2)to compute FIRST for any string =X1X2…Xn , Xi(VNVT),1i n

{i=1; FIRST()={}; //initiate repeat {

FIRST()=FIRST()(FIRST(Xi)-{}) i=i+1 }

until (i=n and FIRST(Xj))

IF (i=n and FIRST(Xn)) FIRST()=FIRST(){} }

Page 96: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

3) Computing FOLLOW(A)(1) Place # in FOLLOW(S), where S is the

start symbol and # is the input right end-marker.

(2)If there is A B in G, then add First()-{}to Follow(B).

(3)If there is A B, or AB where FIRST() contains , then add Follow(A) to Follow(B).

Page 97: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

E.g. Consider the following Grammar, construct FIRST & FOLLOW for each non-terminals

1.E TE` 2.E` +TE`

3.E` 4.T FT`

5.T` *FT` 6.T` 7.F i 8.F (E)

Page 98: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Answer:

First(E)=First(T)=First(F)={(, i}

First(E`)={+, }

First(T`)={*, }

Follow(E)= Follow(E`)={),#}

Follow(T)= Follow(T`)={+,),#}

Follow(F)={*,+,),#}

Page 99: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

4) Construction of Predictive Parsing Tables

Main Idea: Suppose A is a production with a in FIRST(). Then the parser will expand A by when the current input symbol is a. If , we should again expand A by if the current input symbol is in FOLLOW(A), or if the # on the input has been reached and # is in FOLLOW(A).

*

Page 100: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

– Input. Grammar G.

– Output. Parsing table M.

Page 101: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Method.

1. For each production A , do steps 2 and 3.

2. For each terminal a in FIRST(), add A to M[A,a].

3. If is in FIRST(), add A to M[A,b] for each terminal b in FOLLOW(A). If is in FIRST() and # is in FOLLOW(A), add A to M[A,#].

4.Make each undefined entry of M be error.

Page 102: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

E.g. Consider the following Grammar, construct predictive parsing table for it.

1.E TE` 2.E` +TE`

3.E` 4.T FT`

5.T` *FT` 6.T` 7.F i 8.F (E)

Page 103: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Answer:

First(E)=First(T)=First(F)={(, i}

First(E`)={+, }

First(T`)={*, }

Follow(E)= Follow(E`)={),#}

Follow(T)= Follow(T`)={+,),#}

Follow(F)={*,+,),#}

Page 104: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

i + * ( ) #

E ETE` ETE`

E` E` +TE`

E`ε E`ε

T TFT` TFT`

T` T`ε T` *FT`

T`ε T`ε

F F i F (E)

Page 105: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

11 、 LL(1) Grammars

E.g. Consider the following Grammar, construct predictive parsing table for it.

S iEtSS` |a

S` eS | E b

Page 106: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

a b e i t #

S S a S iEtSS`

S` S` eS

S`

S`ε

E E b

Page 107: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

1)Definition

A grammar whose parsing table has no multiply-defined entries is said to be LL(1).

The first “L” stands for scanning the input from left to right.

The second “L” stands for producing a leftmost derivation

“1” means using one input symbol of look-ahead s.t each step to make parsing action decisions.

Page 108: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Note:

(1)No ambiguous can be LL(1).

(2)Left-recursive grammar cannot be LL(1).

(3)A grammar G is LL(1) if and only if whenever A | are two distinct productions of G:

Page 109: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

1). For no terminal a do both and derive strings beginning with a.

2). At most one of and can derive the empty string.

3). If , then does not derive any string beginning with a terminal in FOLLOW(A).

*

Page 110: Part 4   Syntax Analysis
Page 111: Part 4   Syntax Analysis
Page 112: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

12 、 Transform a grammar to LL(1) Grammar– Eliminating all left recursion– Left factoring

Page 113: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

13 、 Error recovery in predictive parsing

Panic-mode error recovery

Phrase-level recovery

Page 114: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

4. 3 BOTTOM-UP Parsing

1 、 Basic idea of bottom-up parsing

Shift-reduce parsing

– Operator-precedence parsing

• An easy-to-implement form

– LR parsing

• A much more general method

• Used in a number of automatic parser generators

Page 115: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

2 、 Basic concepts in Shift-reducing Parsing

– Handles

– Handle Pruning

Page 116: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

3 、 Stack implementation of Shift-Reduce parsing

Parsing ProgramParsing Table M

……#

Output

#

Stack

Input

Page 117: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

4. 4 Operator-precedence parsing

1 、 The definition of an operator grammar

– The grammar has the property that no production right side is or has two adjacent non-terminals.

– E.g. E E+E|E-E|E*E|E/E|(E)|i

Page 118: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

2 、 Precedence relations

– Three disjoint precedence relations

, between certain pairs of terminals.

Page 119: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Terminals a,b, with the following forms:“…ab…”, “…aQb…”, and Q if non-terminal. Then the relationship of a and b is:

1) a b a yields precedence to b

2) a b a has the same precedence as b

3) a b a takes precedence over b

4) for some terminals,we might have none of these relations.

Page 120: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

#

id

)

(

*

+

#id)(*+ RS

LS

Related Grammar: EE+F|F F F*G|G G (E)|id

Page 121: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

3 、 Using Operator-Precedence Relations

Delimit the handle of a right sentential form, with marking the left end, appearing in the interior of the handle, and marking the right end.

Page 122: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

• Let’s analyze id+id+id*id# according to Operator-Precedence Relations.

Page 123: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

4 、 Operator-precedence parsing Algorithm– Input. An input string w and a table of

precedence relations.– Output. If w is well formed , a skeletal

parse tree, with a placeholder non-terminal E labeling all interior nodes; otherwise, an error indication.

– Method. Initially, the stack contains # and the input buffer the string w#.

Page 124: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

AlgorithmSet ip to point to the first symbol of w#;While (1) { if (# is on top of the stack an ip points to #) /*success*/ return; else { let a be the topmost terminal symbol on the stack; let b be the symbol pointed to by ip; if (a b || a b) /*Shift*/ { push b onto the stack; advance ip to the next input symbol; }

Page 125: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Algorithm

else if a b /*reduce*/

do {

pop the stack}

while the top stack terminal is not related by to the terminal most recently popped

else error()

}

}

Page 126: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

5 、 Construct the operator-precedence relationship table

– Construct the FIRSTVT and LASTVT for each non-terminals in the grammar.

– Find out the relations between each of the terminals.

Page 127: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

FIRSTVT(P)=

{ a|P a…or P Qa… , a VT; P,Q VN}

LASTVT(P)=

{ a|P … a or P … aQ , a VT; P,Q VN}

Page 128: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Construct FIRSTVT(P)

(1) If the productions are like P a… or P Qa… , then a FIRSTVT(P)

(2) If a FIRSTVT(Q), and there is a production like P Q… in the grammar, then a FIRSTVT(P)

Page 129: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

– If there is such string as …aP…at the right side of a production, for each of the terminals belong to FIRSTVT(P), the relation is a b;

– If there is such string as …Pb… at the right side of a production, for each of the terminals belong to LASTVT(P), the relation is a b.

Page 130: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

– If there is such string as …aPb… or …ab… at the right side of a production, then a b.

Notes: We assume the precedence of a unary operator is always higher than that of a binary operator

Page 131: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

E.g. Construct the operator-precedence relationship table

S if Eb then E else E

E E+T|T

T T*F|F

F i

Eb b

Page 132: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Answer: add a production S’#S#

FIRSTVT(S)={if} LASTVT(S)={else,+,*,i}

FIRSTVT(E)={+,*,i} LASTVT(E)={+,*,i}

FIRSTVT(T)={*,i} LASTVT(T)={*,i}

FIRSTVT(F)={i} LASTVT(F)={i}

FIRSTVT(Eb )={b} LASTVT(Eb)={b}

Page 133: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

#

b

i

*

+

else

then

if

# bi*+elsethen if

Page 134: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

6 、 Advantages of Operator-precedence parsing

– Simplicity, easy to construct by hand

Page 135: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

7 、 Disadvantages of Operator-precedence parsing– It is hard to handle tokens like the unary operat

ors– Since the relationship between a grammar for th

e language being parsed and the operator-precedence parser itself is tenuous, one cannot always be sure the parser accepts exactly the desired language.

– Only a small class of grammars can be parsed using operator-precedence techniques.

Page 136: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Exercises:

4.14, 4.27

Page 137: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

4. 5 LR parsers

1 、 LR parser– An efficient, bottom-up syntax analysis

technique that can be used to parse a large class of context-free grammars

– LR(k)• L: left-to-right scan• R: construct a rightmost derivation in

reverse• k: the number of input symbols of look

ahead

Page 138: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

2 、 Advantages of LR parser– It can recognize virtually all programming language

constructs for which context-free grammars can be written

– It is the most general non backtracking shift-reduce parsing method

– It can parse more grammars than predictive parsers can

– It can detect a syntactic error as soon as it is possible to do so on a left-to-right scan of the input

Page 139: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

3 、 Disadvantages of LR parser

– It is too much work to construct an LR parser by hand

– It needs a specialized tool,YACC, help it to generate a LR parser

Page 140: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

4 、 Three techniques for constructing an LR parsing

– SLR: simple LR

– LR(1): canonical LR

– LALR: look ahead LR

Page 141: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

5 、 The LR Parsing Model

LR Parsing Program

a+b……#

output

S0Parsing table

input

stack

Page 142: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Note: 1)The driver program is the same for all LR parsers; only the parsing table changes from one parser to another

2)The parsing program reads characters from an input buffer one at a time

3)Si is a state, each state symbol summarizes the information contained in the stack below it

Page 143: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

4)The current input symbol are used to index the parsing table and determine the shift-reduce parsing decision

5)In an implementation, the grammar symbols need not appear on the stack

Page 144: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

6、 The parsing table

r6 r6 r6 r65

328 S4S54

r4 r4 r4 r43

r2 r2S7 r22

acceptS61

321S4S50

FTE#)(*+ i

GOTOACTIONstate

Page 145: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

– Action: a parsing action function

• Action[S,a]: S represent the state currently on top of the stack, and a represent the current input symbol. So Action[S,a] means the parsing action for S and a.

Page 146: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Action: a parsing action function• Shift

– The next input symbol is shifted onto the top of the stack

– Shift S, where S is a state

• Reduce– The parser knows the right end of the handle is

at the top of the stack, locates the left end of the handle within the stack and decides what non-terminal to replace the handle. Reduce by a grammar production A

Page 147: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

• Accept– The parser announces successful completion of

parsing.

• Error– The parser discovers that a syntax error has

occurred and calls an error recovery routine.

Page 148: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Goto: a goto function that takes a state and grammar symbol as arguments and produces a state

Page 149: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

E.g. the parsing action and goto functions of an LR parsing table for the following grammar. E E+T E T T T*F T F F (E) F i

Page 150: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

r5 r5 r5 r511

r3 r3 r3 r310

r1 r1 r19

S11S68

10S4S57

39S4S56

r6 r6 r6 r65

328 S4S54

r4 r4 r4 r43

r2 r2S7 r22

acceptS61

321S4S50

FTE#)(*+ i

GOTOACTIONstate

Page 151: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

1)Sj means shift and stack state j, and the top of the stack change into ( j,a ) ;

2)rj means reduce by production numbered j;

3)Accept means accept4)blank means error

Page 152: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Moves of LR parser on i*i+i State stack Symbol stack input action 0 # i*i+i# Shift 05 #i *i+i# Reduce by 6 03 #F *i+i# Reduce by 4 02 #T *i+i# Shift 027 #T* i+i# Shift 0275 #T*i +i# Reduce by 6 02710 #T*F +i# Reduce by 3 02 #T +i# Reduce by 2 01 #E +i# Shift 016 #E+ i# Shift 0165 #E+i # Reduce by 6 0163 #E+F # Reduce by 4 0169 #E+T # Reduce by 1 01 #E # Accept

Page 153: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Action conflict

• Shift/reduce conflict– Cannot decide whether to shift or to reduce

• Reduce/reduce conflict– Cannot decide which of several reductions to make

Notes: An ambiguous grammar can cause conflicts and can never be LR,e.g.

If_stmt syntax (if expr then stmt [else stmt])

Page 154: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

7 、 The algorithm

– The next move of the parser is determined by reading the current input symbol a, and the state S on top of the stack,and then consulting the parsing action table entry action[S,a].

– If action[Sm,ai]=shift S`,the parser executes a shift move ,enter the S` into the stack,and the next input symbol ai+1 become the current symbol.

Page 155: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

– If action[Sm,ai]=reduce A , then the parser executes a reduce move. If the length of is , then delete states from the stack, so that the state at the top of the stack is Sm- . Push the state S’=GOTO[Sm- ,A] and non-terminal A into the stack. The input symbol does not change.

Page 156: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

– If action[Sm,ai]=accept, parsing is completed.

– If action[Sm,ai]=error, the parser has discovered an error and calls an error recovery routine.

Page 157: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

8 、 LR Grammars– A grammar for which we can construct a parsi

ng table is said to be an LR grammar.9 、 The difference between LL and LR grammars

– LR grammars can describe more languages than LL grammars

10 、 Types of LR grammars– LR(0), SLR, LR(1), LALR– Note:the LR parsing algorithm is the same,but

parsing table is different.

Page 158: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Discussion

• Can we regard a parsing table as a FA.

• What is the FA doing? State? Action?

Page 159: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

11 、 Canonical LR(0)

1 ) LR(0) item

– An LR(0) item of a grammar G is a production of G with a dot at some position of the right side.

Page 160: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

• Such as: A XYZ yields the four items:– A•XYZ . We hope to see a string

derivable from XYZ next on the input.– AX•YZ . We have just seen on the

input a string derivable from X and that we hope next to see a string derivable from YZ next on the input.

– AXY•Z– AX YZ•

• The production A generates only one item, A•.

• Each of this item is a viable prefixes

Page 161: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

2) Construct the canonical LR(0) collection

(1)Define a augmented grammar

• If G is a grammar with start symbol S,the augmented grammar G` is G with a new start symbol S`, and production S` S

• The purpose of the augmented grammar is to indicate to the parser when it should stop parsing and announce acceptance of the input.

Page 162: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

(2)the Closure Operation

• If I is a set of items for a grammar G, then closure(I) is the set of items constructed from I by the two rules:

– Initially, every item in I is added to closure(I).

– If A•B is in CLOSURE(I), and B is a production, then add the item B• to CLOSURE(I); Apply this rule until no more new items can be added to CLOSURE(I).

Page 163: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

(3)the Goto Operation

• Form: goto(I, X),I is a set of items and X is a grammar symbol

• goto(I, X)is defined to be the CLOSURE(J) ,X ( VN VT), J={all items like AX•| A•XI} 。

Page 164: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

3)The Sets-of-Items Constructionvoid ITEMSETS-LR0(){ C:={CLOSURE(S` •S)} /*initial*/ do { for (each set of items I in C and each gram

mar symbol X ) IF (Goto(I,X) is not empty and not in C) {add Goto(I,X) to C} }while C is still extending}

Page 165: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

e.g. construct the canonical collection of sets of LR(0) items for the following augmented grammar.

S` E E aA|bB A cA|d B cB|d

Answer:1 、 the items are : 1. S` •E 2. S` E• 3. E •aA

4. E a•A 5. E aA• 6. A •cA

7. A c•A 8. A cA • 9. A •d

10. A d• 11. E •bB 12. E b•B

13. E bB• 14. B •cB 15. B c•B

16.B cB• 17. B •d 18. B d•

Page 166: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

0: S`•E E •aA E •bB

5: Bc•B B •cB B •d

3: Eb•B B •cB B •d

2:Ea•A A •cA A •dc

1: S` E •

4:Ac•A A •cA A •d

8:Ac A •

10:A d •

6:EaA •

7:EbB•

11:B d •

9:BcB •

b

E

a

c

c

c

c

d

d

d

d

A

A

B

B

Page 167: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

12 、 SLR Parsing Table Algorithm

– Input. An augmented grammar G`

– Output. The SLR parsing table functions action and goto for G`

– Method.

– (1) Construct C={I0,I1,…In}, the collection of sets of LR(0) items for G`.

– (2) State i is constructed from Ii. The parsing actions for state i are determined as follows:

Page 168: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

(a) If [A•a] is in Ii and goto(Ii,a)= Ij, then set ACTION[i,a]=“Shift j”, here a must be a terminal.

(b) If [A• ]Ik, then set ACTION[k,a]=rj for all a in follow(A); here A may not be S`, and j is the No. of production A .

– (3) The goto transitions for state I are constructed for all non terminals A using the rule: if goto (Ii,A)= Ij, then goto[i,A]=j

Page 169: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

– (4) All entries not defined by rules 2 and 3 are made “error”

– (5) The initial state of the parser is the one constructed from the set of items containing [S` S•].

– If any conflicting actions are generated by the above rules, we say the grammar is not SLR(1).

Page 170: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

e.g. construct the SLR(1) table for the following grammar 0. S` E 1. E E+T 2. E T 3. T T*F 4.T F 5. F (E) 6. F i

Page 171: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

I0 : S’E E E+T E T T T*F T F F (E) F i

I2 : E T T T*F I1 : S’ E E E+T I4 : F’(E) E E+T E T T T*F T F F (E) F i

I7 : T T*F F (E) F i

I10 : T T*F

I6 : E E+T T T*F T F F (E) F iI8 : F (E) E E+T

I11 : F (E)

I9 : E E+T TT * F

I5 : F i

I3 : T F

T

E

(

iiF

F

*

+

(

(

E

T

I2

)

T

F

i

I3

I5

F

(

*I4

i I5

Page 172: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

r5 r5 r5 r511

r3 r3 r3 r310

r1 r1 r19

S11S68

10S4S57

39S4S56

r6 r6 r6 r65

328 S4S54

r4 r4 r4 r43

r2 r2S7 r22

acceptS61

321S4S50

FTE#)(*+ i

GOTOACTIONstate

Page 173: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

E.G. 1. S` S

2. S L=R

3. S R

4. L *R5. L i 6. R L

Page 174: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

0: S`•S S •L=R S •R L •*R L •I R •L

6: SL=•R R •L L •*R L •i

2: SL•=R R L•

4:L*•R R •L L •*R L •i

1: S`S•

3:SR•7:L*R•

8:RL•

5:Li •

9:SL=R•

=

R

*

R

L

i

R

S

*

i

i

L*L

Page 175: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

r2 9

r6 r68

r4 r47

98S4S56

r5 r55

78 S4S54

r3 3

r6S6/ r62

acc1

321S4S50

RLS# * i =

GOTOACTIONstate

Page 176: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Notes: In the above grammar , the shift/reduce conflict arises from the fact that the SLR parser construction method is not powerful enough to remember enough left context to decide what action the parser should take on input = having seen a string reducible to L. That is “R=“ cannot be a part of any right sentential form. So when “L” appears on the top of stack and “=“ is the current character of the input buffer , we can not reduce “L” into “R”.

Page 177: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

• 在 SLR 方法中,若 I 中有 A, 当读头为aFollow(A) ,但是也不一定能够采用 A 归约,因为为栈顶时,栈里也可能有 viable prefix “” ,而“”作为活前缀未必允许归约为 A ,因为可能没有一个句型含有 Aa,

• 例如“ R=” 不是任何活前缀。

Page 178: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Method-LR(1)

• 每个 LR(0) 项目添加展望信息:句柄之后可能跟的 k 个终结符。

• (A•, a )的含义:预期当栈顶句柄形成后,在读头下读到 a 。此时,在栈内,还未入栈,即它展望了句柄后的一个符号。

Page 179: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

• 若存在规范推导 S`A ,其中称规范句型的活前缀 ( 记作 ) ,且 aFirst() ,则 LR(1) 项目 (A•,a) 对于活前缀是有效的。注: 1) 如果 bFirst(),即使 bFollow(A), 项目 ( A •,a) 也是无效的。

Page 180: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

13 、 LR(1) item• How to rule out invalid reductions?

– By splitting states when necessary, we can arrange to have each state of an LR parser indicate exactly which input symbols can follow a handle for which there is a possible reduction to A.

• Item (A•,a) is an LR(1) item, “1” refers to the length of the second component, called the look-ahead of the item.

Page 181: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Note :1)The look-ahead has no effect in an item of the f

orm (A•,a), where is not ,but an item of the form (A•,a) calls for a reduction by A only if the next input symbol is a.

2)The set of such a’s will always be a proper subset of FOLLOW(A). Why?

Page 182: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

14 、 Valid LR(1) item

Formally, we say LR(1) item (A•,a) is valid for a viable prefix if there is a derivation S`A, where = ,and

– Either a is the first symbol of , or is and a is #.

Page 183: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

15 、 Construction of the sets of LR(1) items

– Input. An augmented grammar G`

– Output. The sets of LR(1) items that are the set of items valid for one or more viable prefixes of G`.

– Method. The procedures closure and goto and the main routine items for constructing the sets of items.

Page 184: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

function closure(I);

{ do { for (each item (A•B,a) in I,

each production B in G`,

and each terminal b in FIRST(a)

such that (B• ,b) is not in I )

add (B• ,b) to I;

}while there is still new items add to I;

return I

}

Page 185: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

function goto(I, X);

{ let J be the set of items (AX•,a) such that (A• X ,a) is in I ;

return closure(J)

}

Page 186: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Void items (G`);

{C={closure({ (S`•S,#)})};

do { for (each set of items I in C and each grammar symbol X

such that

goto(I, X) is not empty and not in C )

add goto(I, X) to C

} while there is still new items add to C;

}

Page 187: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

e.g.compute the items for the following grammar: 1. S` S 2. S CC 3. C cC|d

Answer: the initial set of items is I0 :

Page 188: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

S` •S,#S•CC,#C•cC, c|dC•d,c|d

I0

Now we compute goto(I0,X) for the various values of X. And then get the goto graph for the grammar.

Page 189: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

I0: S' -> •S, # I6: C -> c•C, #

S -> •CC, # C -> •cC, #

C -> •cC, c/d C -> •d, #

C -> •d, c/d

I1: S' -> S•, # I7: C -> d•, #I8: C -> cC•, c/d I9: C -> cC•, # I2: S -> C•C, # C -> •cC, # C -> •d, # I3: C -> c•C, c/d I4: C -> d•, c/d C -> •cC, c/d C -> •d, c/dI5: S -> CC•, #

Page 190: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

s

C C

C

C

c

c

cc

d

d

dd

Page 191: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

16 、 Construction of the canonical LR parsing table

– Input. An augmented grammar G`

– Output. The canonical LR parsing table functions action and goto for G`

– Method.

(1) Construct C={I0,I1,…In}, the collection of sets of LR(1) items for G`.

(2) State i is constructed from Ii. The parsing actions for state i are determined as follows:

Page 192: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

a) If [A•a,b] is in Ii and goto(Ii,a)= Ij, then set ACTION[i,a]=“Shift j”, here a must be a terminal.

b) If [A• ,a]Ii, A!=S`,then set ACTION[i,a]=rj; j is the No. of production A .

c) If [S`•S,#]is in Ii, then set ACTION[i,#] to “accept”

Page 193: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

(3) The goto transitions for state i are determined as follows: if goto (Ii,A)= Ij, then goto[i,A]=j.

(4) All entries not defined by rules 2 and 3 are made “error”

(5) The initial state of the parser is the one constructed from the set of items containing [S`•S,#].

– If any conflicting actions are generated by the above rules, we say the grammar is not LR(1).

Page 194: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

E.g.construct the canonical parsing table for the following grammar: 1. S` S 2. S CC 3. C cC 4. C d

Page 195: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

state Action goto

c d # S C

0 S3 S4 1 2

1 acc

2 S6 S7 5

3 S3 S4 8

4 r3 r3

5 r1

6 S6 S7 9

7 r3

8 r2 r2

9 r2

Page 196: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Notes:

1)Every SLR(1) grammar is an LR(1) grammar

2)The canonical LR parser may have more states than the SLR parser for the same grammar.

Page 197: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

17 、 LALR(lookahead-LR) 1)Basic idea

Merge the set of LR(1) items having the same core

Page 198: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

(1)When merging, the GOTO sub-table can be merged without any conflict, because GOTO function just relies on the core

(2) When merging, the ACTION sub-table can also be merged without any conflicts, but it may occur the case of merging of error and shift/reduce actions. We assume non-error actions

(3)After the set of LR(1) items are merged, an error may be caught lately, but the error will eventually be caught, in fact, it will be caught before any more input symbols are shifted.

Page 199: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

(4)After merging, the conflict of reduce/reduce may be occurred.

Page 200: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

2)The sets of LR(1) items having the same core

– The states which have the same items but the look-ahead symbols are different, then the states are having the same core.

Notes: We may merge these sets with common cores into one set of items.

Page 201: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

18 、 An easy, but space-consuming LALR table construction

• Input. An augmented grammar G`• Output. The LALR parsing table functions action and goto

for G`• Method.

– (1) Construct C={I0,I1,…In}, the collection of sets of LR(1) items.

– (2) For each core present among the set of LR(1) items, find all sets having that core, and replace these sets by their union.

Page 202: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

– (3) Let C`={J0,J1,…Jm}be the resulting sets of LR(1) items. The parsing actions for state I are constructed from Ji. If there is a parsing action conflict, the algorithm fails to produce a parser, and the grammar is not a LALR.

– (4) The goto table is constructed as follows.

Page 203: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

– If J is the union of one or more sets of LR(1) items, that is , J= I1I2 … Ik then the cores of goto(I1,X), goto(I2,X),…, goto(Ik,X)are the same, since I1,I2,…In all have the same core. Let K be the union of all sets of items having the same core as goto (I1,X). then goto(J,X)=k.

Page 204: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

If there is no parsing action conflicts , the given grammar is said to be an LALR(1) grammar

Page 205: Part 4   Syntax Analysis
Page 206: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

state

Action goto

c d # S C

0 S3 S4 1 2

1 acc

2 S6 S7 5

3 S3 S4 8

4 r3 r3

5 r1

6 S6 S7 9

7 r3

8 r2 r2

9 r2

Parsing string ccd

Page 207: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

4. 6 Using ambiguous grammars

1 、 Using Precedence and Associativity to Resolve Parsing Action Conflicts

Grammar: EE+E|E*E|(E)|i

E E+T|T

T T*F|F

F (E)|i

i+i+i*i+i

Page 208: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

With LR idea , according other conditions , analyze ambiguity Grammar 。 Steps :1 、 Construct LR(0) parsing table ;2 、 if Conflicts happens, solve them with SLR ;3 、 The rest conflicts are solved by other conditi

ons

Page 209: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

E.g : E` E E E+E|E*E|(E)|I

1) LR(0) Parsing Table2) SLR

E.G I1: E` E• E E•+E E E•*iRe - Shift conflict

3)Other conflictsE.g : I7 , E` E + E• E E•+E E E•*ERe - Shift conflict

Page 210: Part 4   Syntax Analysis
Page 211: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

r3

r2

r1

S9

r4

S2

S2

S2

S2

r3r3 r3 9

r2r2/S5r2/S4 8

r1S5/r1r1/S47

S5S46

8 S35

7 S34

r4r4 r43

6 S32

accS5S41

1S30

S# *+ i

GOTOACTIONstate

Page 212: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

For ACTION[7, *] ,reduction or shift?“Shift” because “*” is superior

For ACTION[7, +] reduction or shift?“Shift” because the left “*” is superior

Page 213: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

r3

r2

r1

S9

r4

S2

S2

S2

S2

r3r3 r3 9

r2r2(S5)r2(S4) 8

r1S5 (r1)r1(S4)7

S5S46

8 S35

7 S34

r4r4 r43

6 S32

accS5S41

1S30

S# *+ i

GOTOACTION状态

Page 214: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

2 、 The “Dangling-else” Ambiguity Grammar: S’S S if expr then stmt else stmt |if expr then stmt |other S’S S iSeS|iS|a

Page 215: Part 4   Syntax Analysis
Page 216: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

6

6 S25

r34

r4r4 r43

4 S22

acc1

1S20

S# ae i

GOTOACTIONstate

S3

S3

r4

S5/r3 r3

S3

r1 r1 r1

Page 217: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

6

6 S25

r34

r4r4 r43

4 S22

acc1

1S20

S# ae i

GOTOACTIONstate

S3

S3

r4

S5/r3 r3

S3

r1 r1 r1

Page 218: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

4. 7 Parser Generator Yacc

1 、 Creating an input/output translator with Yacc

Yacc

Compiler

C

Compiler

a.out

Yacc specification translate.y

y.tab.c

input

y.tab.c

a.out

output

Page 219: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

2 、 Three parts of a Yacc source program

declaration

%%

translation rules

%%

supporting C-routines

Notes: The form of a translation rule is as followings:

<Left side>: <alt> {semantic action}

Page 220: Part 4   Syntax Analysis
Page 221: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Syntax Analysis

Context-Free Grammar

Specification

Push-down Automation

Tool

Table-driven

Skill

Top-down,

Bottom-UP

Methods

Top-down

Recursive-descent

Predictive

Derivation-Matching

First,Follow

Bottom-Up

Precedence

FIRSTVT

LASTVT

LR Parsing

SLR(1)

LR(1)

LALR(1)

Shift-Reducing

Layered Automation

Page 222: Part 4   Syntax Analysis
Page 223: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Recursive Descent Analyses

Advantages: Easy to write programs

Disadvantages: Backtracking, poor efficiency

Predictive Analyses : predict the production which is used when a non-terminated occurs on top of the analyses stack

Skills : First, Follow

Disadvantages: More pre-processes(Elimination of left recursions , Extracting maximum common left factors)

……

….

A

a

Controller

LL(1) Parse Table

First() A

Follow(A) A

Page 224: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Bottom-up ---Operator Precedence Analyses

Skills : Shift– Reduce , FIRSTVT, LASTVT

Disadvantages: Strict grammar limitation, poor reduce mechanism

Simple LR Analyses : based on determined FA, state stack and symbol stack (two stacks)

Skills : LR item and Follow(A)

Disadvantages: cannot solve the problems of shift-reduce conflict and reduce-reduce conflict

….

a

b

Controller

OP Parse Table

FIRSTVT() A

LASTVT() A

E

LR(1) analyses

Page 225: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

….

a

b

Controller

SLR(1) Parse Table

LR items (Shift items, Reducible items) LR item –extension (AB) (B)

Follow(A) A

SLR(1) Parser:

0#

i

statesymbol

Page 226: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Canonical LR Analyses(LR(1))

Skills : LR(1) item and Look-ahead symbol

Disadvantages: more states

LALR(1)

Skills : Merge states with the same core

Disadvantages: maybe cause reduce-reduce conflict

Page 227: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

….

a

b

Controller

LR(1) Parse Table

LR items (Shift items, Reducible items) LR item –extension (AB,a) (B,first(a) )

LR(1) Parser:

0#

i

statesymbol

Page 228: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Generation of Parse Tree

Page 229: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

E.g. construct the parse tree for the string “i+i*i” under SLR(1) of the following grammar 0. S` E 1. E E+T 2. E T 3. T T*F 4.T F 5. F (E) 6. F i

Page 230: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

r5 r5 r5 r511

r3 r3 r3 r310

r1 r1 r19

S11S68

10S4S57

39S4S56

r6 r6 r6 r65

328 S4S54

r4 r4 r4 r43

r2 r2S7 r22

acceptS61

321S4S50

FTE#)(*+ i

GOTOACTIONstate

Page 231: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

i + i * i

F

T

E

F

T

F

T

E

Page 232: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

Exercises

• Constructing the related LL(1) parsing table.Pb S dSS ; A|AAB|CBaCD|D e ADE BEi F tFb

Page 233: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

• Please show that the following operator grammar is whether an operator precedence grammar by constructing the related parsing table.

SS ; G|G

GG(T)|H

Ha|(S)

TT+S|S

Page 234: Part 4   Syntax Analysis

• Please construct a LR(1) parsing table for the following two ambiguous grammar with the additional conditions:.

Sif S else S|if S|S;S|a that else dangles with the closest previous unmatched if , ; has the property of left associative

CC and C|C or C|b that or has higher precedence than that of and, and has the property of right associative, or has the property of right associative.