Re: C and LL (1)

"Joachim Durchholz" <joachim_d@gmx.de>
11 Nov 2001 23:13:44 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[2 earlier articles]
Re: C and LL (1) andrew@blueoffice.com (Andrew Wilson) (2001-10-27)
Re: C and LL (1) frigot_e@epita.fr (2001-10-27)
Re: C and LL (1) loewis@informatik.hu-berlin.de (Martin von Loewis) (2001-10-28)
Re: C and LL (1) dr_feriozi@prodigy.net (2001-11-04)
Re: C and LL (1) GOLDParser@DevinCook.com (2001-11-05)
Re: C and LL (1) gzw@home.com (Geoff Wozniak) (2001-11-08)
Re: C and LL (1) joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2001-11-11)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "Joachim Durchholz" <joachim_d@gmx.de>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 11 Nov 2001 23:13:44 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 01-10-121 01-10-134 01-11-063
Keywords: C, parse
Posted-Date: 11 Nov 2001 23:13:44 EST

Geoff Wozniak <gzw@home.com> wrote:
>
> Do you mean 30-40 s/r conflicts with an LALR parser? If so,
> I must have done something stellar because I essentially
> copied the grammar from the C99 standard and got 1 s/r
> conflict (the if-then-else problem).


Maybe the C99 people just had a good intuition about LR grammars ;)
Note that C99 isn't the same as ANSI C (or K&R C).


OTOH even a C99 grammar with the one unavoidable conflict would be a big
improvement. Is there a way to lay hands on your grammar?


Regards,
Joachim

Post a followup to this message

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