Re: Semantics make a grammar ambiguous

"Tzvetan Mikov" <mikov@usa.net>
3 May 1999 01:56:43 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Semantics make a grammar ambiguous bill@megahits.com (Bill A) (1999-04-26)
Re: Semantics make a grammar ambiguous rsherry@home.com (Robert Sherry) (1999-04-29)
Re: Semantics make a grammar ambiguous dplass@yahoo.com (1999-04-30)
Re: Semantics make a grammar ambiguous bill@megahits.com (Bill A.) (1999-04-30)
Re: Semantics make a grammar ambiguous mikov@usa.net (Tzvetan Mikov) (1999-05-03)
Re: Semantics make a grammar ambiguous rkrayhawk@aol.com (1999-05-07)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "Tzvetan Mikov" <mikov@usa.net>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 3 May 1999 01:56:43 -0400
Organization: Posted via RemarQ Communities, Inc.
References: 99-04-087
Keywords: C, parse, types

Bill A wrote in message
>[..]
>I'm having difficulty parsing this with an LALR parser (generated from
>a parser generator) because the second str should be an id but matches
>a typedef definition so a typedef terminal is returned from the lexer.
>What is the traditional way to handle this ambiguity? Is this a good
>case of why most production compilers are recursive decent?


To solve this problem I allow a typedef-name as well as an identifier
to appear in a declaration. I have written separate non-terminals for
declarations that allow redeclaring of a typedef-name and for ones
that don't. Each non-terminal has to be used selectively in the
context in order to avoid conflicts (for example you can't redeclare a
typedef-name in a declaration with implicit type). After quite a lot
of head-scratching now there is only one shift-reduce conflict in the
grammar.


I don't think it is a good idea to feed the scanner with context-dependent
information - it could cause troubles with error recovery and generally I
think it could introduce obscure bugs.


regards,
Tzvetan


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.