|easy LALR code email@example.com (1993-05-11)|
|Re: easy LALR code firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-05-15)|
|Re: easy LALR code email@example.com (1993-05-18)|
|Re: easy LALR code firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-05-19)|
|Re: easy LALR code email@example.com (1993-05-20)|
|Re: easy LALR code firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-05-25)|
|From:||email@example.com (Daniel J. Salomon)|
|Organization:||Computer Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada|
|Date:||Tue, 25 May 1993 22:03:24 GMT|
firstname.lastname@example.org (Daniel J. Salomon) writes:
>If you are looking for a clear description of a highly efficient, but
>complex algorithm for LALR parser generation, check out Tremblay and
>Sorenson "The Theory and Practice of Compiler Writing" ...
email@example.com (Henry Spencer) writes:
> The clearest description of how to build an LALR parser that I ever saw
> was the Aho&Johnson paper in the June 1974 ACM Computing Surveys, which
> tells you how yacc works.
We are not discussing the same algorithm. DeRemer's efficient algorithm
is reputed to run 5 to 8 times as fast as YACC's algorithm. So if you
want a description of an efficient algorithm you have to go to DeRemer's
paper, or to Tremblay and Sorenson's book. If you want a clear
description of the less efficient LALR algorithms, then there may be
better sources than Tremblay & Sorenson. In general Tremblay & Sorenson
tend to be somewhat verbose, but often offer a distinctively different
description from the Red Dragon, or the Red Dragon copy-cat books.
Dan Salomon -- salomon@cs.UManitoba.CA
Dept. of Computer Science / University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2 / (204) 275-6682
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.