Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers

Sebastian Schmidt <sc@iaxp01.inf.uni-jena.de>
Fri, 10 Nov 1995 09:45:12 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers oaolsen@login.eunet.no (Odd Arild Olsen) (1995-11-04)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers krish@cs.purdue.edu (Saileshwar Krishnamurthy) (1995-11-09)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers sc@iaxp01.inf.uni-jena.de (Sebastian Schmidt) (1995-11-10)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers the_tick@access5.digex.net (1995-11-10)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers parrt@lonewolf.parr-research.com (1995-11-14)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers simmons@bnr.ca (steve (s.s.) simmons) (1995-11-15)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers parrt@parr-research.com (Terence John Parr) (1995-11-20)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers bill@amber.ssd.hcsc.com (1995-11-22)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers elliottc@logica.com (1995-11-24)
[19 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: Sebastian Schmidt <sc@iaxp01.inf.uni-jena.de>
Keywords: parse, LALR, LL(1)
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 95-11-051
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 09:45:12 GMT

Odd Arild Olsen <oaolsen@login.eunet.no> writes:


[LALR allows for more complex grammars but LL(1) can yield faster,
  smaller and more understandable parsers with better error handling.]


[There is a LL(1) grammar for C (cgram-ll1)]


In most cases grammars are not only used for parsing but also to build
(at least conceptually) an abstract syntax tree as input for the
semantic analysis step. After performing the transformations required
to make a grammar LL(1), it is very hard to use it to represent
semantic properties of the language.


I didn't take a look at it, but I guess this is the case for
'cgram-ll1' too.


regards
--
e-mail: sc@iaxp01.inf.uni-jena.de
phone: (+49) 3641 631398
fax: (+49) 3641 631400
--

Post a followup to this message

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