|Tool support for resolving LR conflict email@example.com (2005-09-07)|
|Re: Tool support for resolving LR conflict firstname.lastname@example.org (2005-09-10)|
|Re: Tool support for resolving LR conflict email@example.com (Karsten Nyblad) (2005-09-17)|
|Re: Tool support for resolving LR conflict firstname.lastname@example.org (2005-10-02)|
|Re: Tool support for resolving LR conflict email@example.com (Sylvain Schmitz) (2005-10-04)|
|From:||Karsten Nyblad <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||17 Sep 2005 13:58:54 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||17 Sep 2005 13:58:54 EDT|
Torben Ęgidius Mogensen wrote:
> email@example.com writes:
>>Does there exist any tool support which aids grammar writer in finding
>>out possible causes of LR-parser conflict and further give him some
>>hints to resolve them? If yes please provide me relevant links.
> The parser generator itself should be able to aid the grammar writer
> in fainding the cause of the conflict. I does so by showing a
> readable representation of the set of LR(0) itemsets and the actions
> on each symbol. This requires some knowledge of LR(0) construction to
> be helpful, though.
Deremer and Penello describe a method for how you can give a hit to
the user on what is wrong in their TOPLAS article on how to calculate
LALR(1) lookahead sets. They trace the graphs used in their algorithm
for calculating lookahead set to find out from the ambiguity comes and
print the information in a human readable way, which does not require
knowledge of advanced parser generator technics.
I have myself ported it to Ole Lehmann Madsens on Bent Bruun Kristensens
algorithm for calculating lookahead set, something anybody capable of
writing a parser generator should be capable of doing.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.