|LALR(1)- but not LR(1)-conflict email@example.com (1995-01-31)|
|Re: LALR(1)- but not LR(1)-conflict firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-02-02)|
|Re: LALR(1)- but not LR(1)-conflict email@example.com (1995-02-03)|
|Re: LALR(1)- but not LR(1)-conflict Robert.Corbett@Eng.Sun.COM (1995-02-04)|
|Re: LALR(1)- but not LR(1)-conflict firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-02-09)|
|Re: LALR(1)- but not LR(1)-conflict email@example.com (1995-02-12)|
|Re: LALR(1)- but not LR(1)-conflict firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-02-18)|
|From:||Robert.Corbett@Eng.Sun.COM (Robert Corbett)|
|Organization:||Sun Microsystems Computer Corporation|
|Date:||Sat, 4 Feb 1995 03:47:24 GMT|
email@example.com (Bernd Holzmueller) writes:
>Does anybody know of a concrete example of an LALR(1)-conflict in an existing
>(or hypothetical but semantically meaningful) programming language grammar
>which is *exactly* LALR(1), i.e. the conflict is solved by moving to LR(1)?
Adam Dickmeiss <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>This grammar is LR(1) but not LALR(1):
>%term a b c d
>S: A a | b A c | B c | b B a
>There is a reduce/reduce conflict on rule "A -> d" and rule "B -> d" on
>terminals a and c.
>See Aho, et al.: "Compilers, Principles, Techniques, and Tools",
The example given has become the standard example. It has the drawback
of being too simple. This example has misled many people into thinking
that it should be easy to write fast state-splitting algorithms for
LR(1)-parser generation. To get an idea how hard the problem really is,
read the paper
"On the Incremental Approach to Left-to-right Parsing"
Tech. Report PE 238
Information and Computer Sciences Dept.
University of Hawaii
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.