4 Maybe we could expand unit rules, i.e., transform
12 exp: exp '+' exp | exp '&' exp;
14 when there are no actions. This can significantly speed up some
18 Currently, not only is Bison unable to handle huge grammars because of
19 internal limitations (see test `big triangle'). Push the limit beyond
20 253. Be my guest: fix this!
23 This is not portable to DOS for instance. Implement a more portable
24 scheme. Sources of inspiration include GNU diff, and Free Recode.
30 The %union is declared after the user C declarations. It can be
31 a problem if YYSTYPE is declared after the user part. []
33 Actually, the real problem seems that the %union ought to be output
34 where it was defined. For instance, in gettext/intl/plural.y, we
44 unsigned long int num;
46 struct expression *exp;
51 static int yylex PARAMS ((YYSTYPE *lval, const char **pexp));
55 Where the first part defines struct expression, the second uses it to
56 define YYSTYPE, and the last uses YYSTYPE. Only this order is valid.
65 ** %semantic-parser []
67 ** Options which could use parse_dquoted_param ().
68 Maybe transfered in lex.c.
74 ** Skeleton strategy. []
75 Must we keep %no-parser?
80 Find the best graph parameters. []
84 informations about ERROR_VERBOSE. []
85 ** Add explainations about
90 ** tests/pure-parser.at []
97 akim demaille <akim.demaille@epita.fr> writes:
99 > With great pleasure! Nonetheless, things which are debatable
100 > (or not, but just `big') should be discuss in `public': something
101 > like help- or bug-bison@gnu.org is just fine. Jesse and I are there,
102 > but there is also Jim and some other people.
104 I have no idea whether it qualifies as big or controversial, so I'll
105 just summarize for you. I proposed this change years ago and was
106 surprised that it was met with utter indifference!
108 This debug feature is for the programs/grammars one develops with
109 bison, not for debugging bison itself. I find that the YYDEBUG
110 output comes in a very inconvenient format for my purposes.
111 When debugging gcc, for instance, what I want is to see a trace of
112 the sequence of reductions and the line#s for the semantic actions
113 so I can follow what's happening. Single-step in gdb doesn't cut it
114 because to move from one semantic action to the next takes you through
115 lots of internal machinery of the parser, which is uninteresting.
117 The change I made was to the format of the debug output, so that it
118 comes out in the format of C error messages, digestible by emacs
119 compile mode, like so:
121 grammar.y:1234: foo: bar(0x123456) baz(0x345678)
123 where "foo: bar baz" is the reduction rule, whose semantic action
124 appears on line 1234 of the bison grammar file grammar.y. The hex
125 numbers on the rhs tokens are the parse-stack values associated with
126 those tokens. Of course, yytype might be something totally
127 incompatible with that representation, but for the most part, yytype
128 values are single words (scalars or pointers). In the case of gcc,
129 they're most often pointers to tree nodes. Come to think of it, the
130 right thing to do is to make the printing of stack values be
131 user-definable. It would also be useful to include the filename &
132 line# of the file being parsed, but the main filename & line# should
133 continue to be that of grammar.y
135 Anyway, this feature has saved my life on numerous occasions. The way
136 I customarily use it is to first run bison with the traces on, isolate
137 the sequence of reductions that interests me, put those traces in a
138 buffer and force it into compile-mode, then visit each of those lines
139 in the grammar and set breakpoints with C-x SPACE. Then, I can run
140 again under the control of gdb and stop at each semantic action.
141 With the hex addresses of tree nodes, I can inspect the values
142 associated with any rhs token.
147 Some users create their foo.y files, and equip them with #line. Bison
148 should recognize these, and preserve them.
151 See if we can integrate backtracking in Bison. Contact the BTYacc
155 Display more clearly the lookaheads for each item.
158 See if we can use precedence between rules to solve RR conflicts. See
162 It is unfortunate that there is a total order for precedence. It
163 makes it impossible to have modular precedence information. We should
164 move to partial orders.
167 Rewrite the reader in Bison.