Re: Beginner help with LALR(1) closure

icedancer@ibm.net (Ken Walter)
7 Dec 1996 23:05:22 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[2 earlier articles]
Re: Beginner help with LALR(1) closure grout@sp55.csrd.uiuc.edu (1996-11-14)
Re: Beginner help with LALR(1) closure compres@world.std.com (1996-11-14)
Re: Beginner help with LALR(1) closure farzu@cs.tamu.edu (Francisco Arzu) (1996-11-14)
Re: Beginner help with LALR(1) closure adrian@dcs.rhbnc.ac.uk (1996-11-19)
Re: Beginner help with LALR(1) closure salomon@silver.cs.umanitoba.ca (1996-11-19)
Re: Beginner help with LALR(1) closure gianni@engr.sgi.com (Gianni Mariani) (1996-12-03)
Re: Beginner help with LALR(1) closure icedancer@ibm.net (1996-12-07)
Re: Beginner help with LALR(1) closure salomon@silver.cs.umanitoba.ca (1996-12-15)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: icedancer@ibm.net (Ken Walter)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 7 Dec 1996 23:05:22 -0500
Organization: Solution Technology
References: 96-11-080 96-11-088 96-11-12796-11-080 96-11-088 96-11-127 96-12-038
Keywords: parse, LR(1)

Gianni Mariani <gianni@engr.sgi.com> Dec 1996 20:51:26 -0500 writes:
[...]
;>Are LR(1) tables so big that todays processors
:>are unable to deal with them effectivly ? (seem X lately ?).


Had no problems over a decade ago with tables for a 1000+ production
Algol68 grammar. Did a lot of optimization on transition table
representation and overlap. Also kept the generation tables in a
compact form; No spase arrays like LR(k) generation was usually
explained.


Ken Walter
--

Post a followup to this message

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