Re: LR(1) resolving SLR(1) reduce/reduce conflict

gvcormac@speedy.uwaterloo.ca (Gordon Cormack)
5 Apr 2003 14:47:31 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
LR(1) resolving SLR(1) reduce/reduce conflict haberg@math.su.se (2003-03-30)
Re: LR(1) resolving SLR(1) reduce/reduce conflict gvcormac@speedy.uwaterloo.ca (2003-03-30)
Re: LR(1) resolving SLR(1) reduce/reduce conflict haberg@math.su.se (2003-03-31)
Re: LR(1) resolving SLR(1) reduce/reduce conflict gvcormac@speedy.uwaterloo.ca (2003-04-05)
Re: LR(1) resolving SLR(1) reduce/reduce conflict haberg@math.su.se (2003-04-07)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: gvcormac@speedy.uwaterloo.ca (Gordon Cormack)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 5 Apr 2003 14:47:31 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 03-03-203
Keywords: parse, LR(1)
Posted-Date: 05 Apr 2003 14:47:31 EST

>I got three LR(1) states:
> 1. A -> w . {x}
> B -> w . {y}
>
> 2. A -> w . {y}
>
> 3. B -> w . {x}
>
>Somehow, you have merged states 2 and 3 above. Perhaps that is what
>happens in LALR(1)?
>
>In SLR, just drop the {..} lookaheads.


Of course you are right, so the grammar is LALR, contrary to what I
I claimed.


There is still an SLR conflict in state 1.

Post a followup to this message

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