* tests/Makefile.am ($(srcdir)/$(TESTSUITE)): No longer depend upon package.m4.

[bison.git] / doc / bison.info-4

Ceci est le fichier Info bison.info, produit par Makeinfo version 4.0b
à partir bison.texinfo.

START-INFO-DIR-ENTRY
* bison: (bison).       GNU Project parser generator (yacc replacement).
END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY

   This file documents the Bison parser generator.

   Copyright (C) 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1998, 1999,
2000, 2001 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

   Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this
manual provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are
preserved on all copies.

   Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of
this manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided also
that the sections entitled "GNU General Public License" and "Conditions
for Using Bison" are included exactly as in the original, and provided
that the entire resulting derived work is distributed under the terms
of a permission notice identical to this one.

   Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this
manual into another language, under the above conditions for modified
versions, except that the sections entitled "GNU General Public
License", "Conditions for Using Bison" and this permission notice may be
included in translations approved by the Free Software Foundation
instead of in the original English.

\1f
File: bison.info,  Node: Algorithm,  Next: Error Recovery,  Prev: Interface,  Up: Top

The Bison Parser Algorithm
**************************

   As Bison reads tokens, it pushes them onto a stack along with their
semantic values.  The stack is called the "parser stack".  Pushing a
token is traditionally called "shifting".

   For example, suppose the infix calculator has read `1 + 5 *', with a
`3' to come.  The stack will have four elements, one for each token
that was shifted.

   But the stack does not always have an element for each token read.
When the last N tokens and groupings shifted match the components of a
grammar rule, they can be combined according to that rule.  This is
called "reduction".  Those tokens and groupings are replaced on the
stack by a single grouping whose symbol is the result (left hand side)
of that rule.  Running the rule's action is part of the process of
reduction, because this is what computes the semantic value of the
resulting grouping.

   For example, if the infix calculator's parser stack contains this:

     1 + 5 * 3

and the next input token is a newline character, then the last three
elements can be reduced to 15 via the rule:

     expr: expr '*' expr;

Then the stack contains just these three elements:

     1 + 15

At this point, another reduction can be made, resulting in the single
value 16.  Then the newline token can be shifted.

   The parser tries, by shifts and reductions, to reduce the entire
input down to a single grouping whose symbol is the grammar's
start-symbol (*note Languages and Context-Free Grammars: Language and
Grammar.).

   This kind of parser is known in the literature as a bottom-up parser.

* Menu:

* Look-Ahead::        Parser looks one token ahead when deciding what to do.
* Shift/Reduce::      Conflicts: when either shifting or reduction is valid.
* Precedence::        Operator precedence works by resolving conflicts.
* Contextual Precedence::  When an operator's precedence depends on context.
* Parser States::     The parser is a finite-state-machine with stack.
* Reduce/Reduce::     When two rules are applicable in the same situation.
* Mystery Conflicts::  Reduce/reduce conflicts that look unjustified.
* Stack Overflow::    What happens when stack gets full.  How to avoid it.

\1f
File: bison.info,  Node: Look-Ahead,  Next: Shift/Reduce,  Up: Algorithm

Look-Ahead Tokens
=================

   The Bison parser does _not_ always reduce immediately as soon as the
last N tokens and groupings match a rule.  This is because such a
simple strategy is inadequate to handle most languages.  Instead, when a
reduction is possible, the parser sometimes "looks ahead" at the next
token in order to decide what to do.

   When a token is read, it is not immediately shifted; first it
becomes the "look-ahead token", which is not on the stack.  Now the
parser can perform one or more reductions of tokens and groupings on
the stack, while the look-ahead token remains off to the side.  When no
more reductions should take place, the look-ahead token is shifted onto
the stack.  This does not mean that all possible reductions have been
done; depending on the token type of the look-ahead token, some rules
may choose to delay their application.

   Here is a simple case where look-ahead is needed.  These three rules
define expressions which contain binary addition operators and postfix
unary factorial operators (`!'), and allow parentheses for grouping.

     expr:     term '+' expr
             | term
             ;
     
     term:     '(' expr ')'
             | term '!'
             | NUMBER
             ;

   Suppose that the tokens `1 + 2' have been read and shifted; what
should be done?  If the following token is `)', then the first three
tokens must be reduced to form an `expr'.  This is the only valid
course, because shifting the `)' would produce a sequence of symbols
`term ')'', and no rule allows this.

   If the following token is `!', then it must be shifted immediately so
that `2 !' can be reduced to make a `term'.  If instead the parser were
to reduce before shifting, `1 + 2' would become an `expr'.  It would
then be impossible to shift the `!' because doing so would produce on
the stack the sequence of symbols `expr '!''.  No rule allows that
sequence.

   The current look-ahead token is stored in the variable `yychar'.
*Note Special Features for Use in Actions: Action Features.

\1f
File: bison.info,  Node: Shift/Reduce,  Next: Precedence,  Prev: Look-Ahead,  Up: Algorithm

Shift/Reduce Conflicts
======================

   Suppose we are parsing a language which has if-then and if-then-else
statements, with a pair of rules like this:

     if_stmt:
               IF expr THEN stmt
             | IF expr THEN stmt ELSE stmt
             ;

Here we assume that `IF', `THEN' and `ELSE' are terminal symbols for
specific keyword tokens.

   When the `ELSE' token is read and becomes the look-ahead token, the
contents of the stack (assuming the input is valid) are just right for
reduction by the first rule.  But it is also legitimate to shift the
`ELSE', because that would lead to eventual reduction by the second
rule.

   This situation, where either a shift or a reduction would be valid,
is called a "shift/reduce conflict".  Bison is designed to resolve
these conflicts by choosing to shift, unless otherwise directed by
operator precedence declarations.  To see the reason for this, let's
contrast it with the other alternative.

   Since the parser prefers to shift the `ELSE', the result is to attach
the else-clause to the innermost if-statement, making these two inputs
equivalent:

     if x then if y then win (); else lose;
     
     if x then do; if y then win (); else lose; end;

   But if the parser chose to reduce when possible rather than shift,
the result would be to attach the else-clause to the outermost
if-statement, making these two inputs equivalent:

     if x then if y then win (); else lose;
     
     if x then do; if y then win (); end; else lose;

   The conflict exists because the grammar as written is ambiguous:
either parsing of the simple nested if-statement is legitimate.  The
established convention is that these ambiguities are resolved by
attaching the else-clause to the innermost if-statement; this is what
Bison accomplishes by choosing to shift rather than reduce.  (It would
ideally be cleaner to write an unambiguous grammar, but that is very
hard to do in this case.)  This particular ambiguity was first
encountered in the specifications of Algol 60 and is called the
"dangling `else'" ambiguity.

   To avoid warnings from Bison about predictable, legitimate
shift/reduce conflicts, use the `%expect N' declaration.  There will be
no warning as long as the number of shift/reduce conflicts is exactly N.
*Note Suppressing Conflict Warnings: Expect Decl.

   The definition of `if_stmt' above is solely to blame for the
conflict, but the conflict does not actually appear without additional
rules.  Here is a complete Bison input file that actually manifests the
conflict:

     %token IF THEN ELSE variable
     %%
     stmt:     expr
             | if_stmt
             ;
     
     if_stmt:
               IF expr THEN stmt
             | IF expr THEN stmt ELSE stmt
             ;
     
     expr:     variable
             ;

\1f
File: bison.info,  Node: Precedence,  Next: Contextual Precedence,  Prev: Shift/Reduce,  Up: Algorithm

Operator Precedence
===================

   Another situation where shift/reduce conflicts appear is in
arithmetic expressions.  Here shifting is not always the preferred
resolution; the Bison declarations for operator precedence allow you to
specify when to shift and when to reduce.

* Menu:

* Why Precedence::    An example showing why precedence is needed.
* Using Precedence::  How to specify precedence in Bison grammars.
* Precedence Examples::  How these features are used in the previous example.
* How Precedence::    How they work.

\1f
File: bison.info,  Node: Why Precedence,  Next: Using Precedence,  Up: Precedence

When Precedence is Needed
-------------------------

   Consider the following ambiguous grammar fragment (ambiguous because
the input `1 - 2 * 3' can be parsed in two different ways):

     expr:     expr '-' expr
             | expr '*' expr
             | expr '<' expr
             | '(' expr ')'
             ...
             ;

Suppose the parser has seen the tokens `1', `-' and `2'; should it
reduce them via the rule for the subtraction operator?  It depends on
the next token.  Of course, if the next token is `)', we must reduce;
shifting is invalid because no single rule can reduce the token
sequence `- 2 )' or anything starting with that.  But if the next token
is `*' or `<', we have a choice: either shifting or reduction would
allow the parse to complete, but with different results.

   To decide which one Bison should do, we must consider the results.
If the next operator token OP is shifted, then it must be reduced first
in order to permit another opportunity to reduce the difference.  The
result is (in effect) `1 - (2 OP 3)'.  On the other hand, if the
subtraction is reduced before shifting OP, the result is
`(1 - 2) OP 3'.  Clearly, then, the choice of shift or reduce should
depend on the relative precedence of the operators `-' and OP: `*'
should be shifted first, but not `<'.

   What about input such as `1 - 2 - 5'; should this be `(1 - 2) - 5'
or should it be `1 - (2 - 5)'?  For most operators we prefer the
former, which is called "left association".  The latter alternative,
"right association", is desirable for assignment operators.  The choice
of left or right association is a matter of whether the parser chooses
to shift or reduce when the stack contains `1 - 2' and the look-ahead
token is `-': shifting makes right-associativity.

\1f
File: bison.info,  Node: Using Precedence,  Next: Precedence Examples,  Prev: Why Precedence,  Up: Precedence

Specifying Operator Precedence
------------------------------

   Bison allows you to specify these choices with the operator
precedence declarations `%left' and `%right'.  Each such declaration
contains a list of tokens, which are operators whose precedence and
associativity is being declared.  The `%left' declaration makes all
those operators left-associative and the `%right' declaration makes
them right-associative.  A third alternative is `%nonassoc', which
declares that it is a syntax error to find the same operator twice "in a
row".

   The relative precedence of different operators is controlled by the
order in which they are declared.  The first `%left' or `%right'
declaration in the file declares the operators whose precedence is
lowest, the next such declaration declares the operators whose
precedence is a little higher, and so on.

\1f
File: bison.info,  Node: Precedence Examples,  Next: How Precedence,  Prev: Using Precedence,  Up: Precedence

Precedence Examples
-------------------

   In our example, we would want the following declarations:

     %left '<'
     %left '-'
     %left '*'

   In a more complete example, which supports other operators as well,
we would declare them in groups of equal precedence.  For example,
`'+'' is declared with `'-'':

     %left '<' '>' '=' NE LE GE
     %left '+' '-'
     %left '*' '/'

(Here `NE' and so on stand for the operators for "not equal" and so on.
We assume that these tokens are more than one character long and
therefore are represented by names, not character literals.)

\1f
File: bison.info,  Node: How Precedence,  Prev: Precedence Examples,  Up: Precedence

How Precedence Works
--------------------

   The first effect of the precedence declarations is to assign
precedence levels to the terminal symbols declared.  The second effect
is to assign precedence levels to certain rules: each rule gets its
precedence from the last terminal symbol mentioned in the components.
(You can also specify explicitly the precedence of a rule.  *Note
Context-Dependent Precedence: Contextual Precedence.)

   Finally, the resolution of conflicts works by comparing the
precedence of the rule being considered with that of the look-ahead
token.  If the token's precedence is higher, the choice is to shift.
If the rule's precedence is higher, the choice is to reduce.  If they
have equal precedence, the choice is made based on the associativity of
that precedence level.  The verbose output file made by `-v' (*note
Invoking Bison: Invocation.) says how each conflict was resolved.

   Not all rules and not all tokens have precedence.  If either the
rule or the look-ahead token has no precedence, then the default is to
shift.

\1f
File: bison.info,  Node: Contextual Precedence,  Next: Parser States,  Prev: Precedence,  Up: Algorithm

Context-Dependent Precedence
============================

   Often the precedence of an operator depends on the context.  This
sounds outlandish at first, but it is really very common.  For example,
a minus sign typically has a very high precedence as a unary operator,
and a somewhat lower precedence (lower than multiplication) as a binary
operator.

   The Bison precedence declarations, `%left', `%right' and
`%nonassoc', can only be used once for a given token; so a token has
only one precedence declared in this way.  For context-dependent
precedence, you need to use an additional mechanism: the `%prec'
modifier for rules.

   The `%prec' modifier declares the precedence of a particular rule by
specifying a terminal symbol whose precedence should be used for that
rule.  It's not necessary for that symbol to appear otherwise in the
rule.  The modifier's syntax is:

     %prec TERMINAL-SYMBOL

and it is written after the components of the rule.  Its effect is to
assign the rule the precedence of TERMINAL-SYMBOL, overriding the
precedence that would be deduced for it in the ordinary way.  The
altered rule precedence then affects how conflicts involving that rule
are resolved (*note Operator Precedence: Precedence.).

   Here is how `%prec' solves the problem of unary minus.  First,
declare a precedence for a fictitious terminal symbol named `UMINUS'.
There are no tokens of this type, but the symbol serves to stand for its
precedence:

     ...
     %left '+' '-'
     %left '*'
     %left UMINUS

   Now the precedence of `UMINUS' can be used in specific rules:

     exp:    ...
             | exp '-' exp
             ...
             | '-' exp %prec UMINUS

\1f
File: bison.info,  Node: Parser States,  Next: Reduce/Reduce,  Prev: Contextual Precedence,  Up: Algorithm

Parser States
=============

   The function `yyparse' is implemented using a finite-state machine.
The values pushed on the parser stack are not simply token type codes;
they represent the entire sequence of terminal and nonterminal symbols
at or near the top of the stack.  The current state collects all the
information about previous input which is relevant to deciding what to
do next.

   Each time a look-ahead token is read, the current parser state
together with the type of look-ahead token are looked up in a table.
This table entry can say, "Shift the look-ahead token."  In this case,
it also specifies the new parser state, which is pushed onto the top of
the parser stack.  Or it can say, "Reduce using rule number N."  This
means that a certain number of tokens or groupings are taken off the
top of the stack, and replaced by one grouping.  In other words, that
number of states are popped from the stack, and one new state is pushed.

   There is one other alternative: the table can say that the
look-ahead token is erroneous in the current state.  This causes error
processing to begin (*note Error Recovery::).

\1f
File: bison.info,  Node: Reduce/Reduce,  Next: Mystery Conflicts,  Prev: Parser States,  Up: Algorithm

Reduce/Reduce Conflicts
=======================

   A reduce/reduce conflict occurs if there are two or more rules that
apply to the same sequence of input.  This usually indicates a serious
error in the grammar.

   For example, here is an erroneous attempt to define a sequence of
zero or more `word' groupings.

     sequence: /* empty */
                     { printf ("empty sequence\n"); }
             | maybeword
             | sequence word
                     { printf ("added word %s\n", $2); }
             ;
     
     maybeword: /* empty */
                     { printf ("empty maybeword\n"); }
             | word
                     { printf ("single word %s\n", $1); }
             ;

The error is an ambiguity: there is more than one way to parse a single
`word' into a `sequence'.  It could be reduced to a `maybeword' and
then into a `sequence' via the second rule.  Alternatively,
nothing-at-all could be reduced into a `sequence' via the first rule,
and this could be combined with the `word' using the third rule for
`sequence'.

   There is also more than one way to reduce nothing-at-all into a
`sequence'.  This can be done directly via the first rule, or
indirectly via `maybeword' and then the second rule.

   You might think that this is a distinction without a difference,
because it does not change whether any particular input is valid or
not.  But it does affect which actions are run.  One parsing order runs
the second rule's action; the other runs the first rule's action and
the third rule's action.  In this example, the output of the program
changes.

   Bison resolves a reduce/reduce conflict by choosing to use the rule
that appears first in the grammar, but it is very risky to rely on
this.  Every reduce/reduce conflict must be studied and usually
eliminated.  Here is the proper way to define `sequence':

     sequence: /* empty */
                     { printf ("empty sequence\n"); }
             | sequence word
                     { printf ("added word %s\n", $2); }
             ;

   Here is another common error that yields a reduce/reduce conflict:

     sequence: /* empty */
             | sequence words
             | sequence redirects
             ;
     
     words:    /* empty */
             | words word
             ;
     
     redirects:/* empty */
             | redirects redirect
             ;

The intention here is to define a sequence which can contain either
`word' or `redirect' groupings.  The individual definitions of
`sequence', `words' and `redirects' are error-free, but the three
together make a subtle ambiguity: even an empty input can be parsed in
infinitely many ways!

   Consider: nothing-at-all could be a `words'.  Or it could be two
`words' in a row, or three, or any number.  It could equally well be a
`redirects', or two, or any number.  Or it could be a `words' followed
by three `redirects' and another `words'.  And so on.

   Here are two ways to correct these rules.  First, to make it a
single level of sequence:

     sequence: /* empty */
             | sequence word
             | sequence redirect
             ;

   Second, to prevent either a `words' or a `redirects' from being
empty:

     sequence: /* empty */
             | sequence words
             | sequence redirects
             ;
     
     words:    word
             | words word
             ;
     
     redirects:redirect
             | redirects redirect
             ;

\1f
File: bison.info,  Node: Mystery Conflicts,  Next: Stack Overflow,  Prev: Reduce/Reduce,  Up: Algorithm

Mysterious Reduce/Reduce Conflicts
==================================

   Sometimes reduce/reduce conflicts can occur that don't look
warranted.  Here is an example:

     %token ID
     
     %%
     def:    param_spec return_spec ','
             ;
     param_spec:
                  type
             |    name_list ':' type
             ;
     return_spec:
                  type
             |    name ':' type
             ;
     type:        ID
             ;
     name:        ID
             ;
     name_list:
                  name
             |    name ',' name_list
             ;

   It would seem that this grammar can be parsed with only a single
token of look-ahead: when a `param_spec' is being read, an `ID' is a
`name' if a comma or colon follows, or a `type' if another `ID'
follows.  In other words, this grammar is LR(1).

   However, Bison, like most parser generators, cannot actually handle
all LR(1) grammars.  In this grammar, two contexts, that after an `ID'
at the beginning of a `param_spec' and likewise at the beginning of a
`return_spec', are similar enough that Bison assumes they are the same.
They appear similar because the same set of rules would be active--the
rule for reducing to a `name' and that for reducing to a `type'.  Bison
is unable to determine at that stage of processing that the rules would
require different look-ahead tokens in the two contexts, so it makes a
single parser state for them both.  Combining the two contexts causes a
conflict later.  In parser terminology, this occurrence means that the
grammar is not LALR(1).

   In general, it is better to fix deficiencies than to document them.
But this particular deficiency is intrinsically hard to fix; parser
generators that can handle LR(1) grammars are hard to write and tend to
produce parsers that are very large.  In practice, Bison is more useful
as it is now.

   When the problem arises, you can often fix it by identifying the two
parser states that are being confused, and adding something to make them
look distinct.  In the above example, adding one rule to `return_spec'
as follows makes the problem go away:

     %token BOGUS
     ...
     %%
     ...
     return_spec:
                  type
             |    name ':' type
             /* This rule is never used.  */
             |    ID BOGUS
             ;

   This corrects the problem because it introduces the possibility of an
additional active rule in the context after the `ID' at the beginning of
`return_spec'.  This rule is not active in the corresponding context in
a `param_spec', so the two contexts receive distinct parser states.  As
long as the token `BOGUS' is never generated by `yylex', the added rule
cannot alter the way actual input is parsed.

   In this particular example, there is another way to solve the
problem: rewrite the rule for `return_spec' to use `ID' directly
instead of via `name'.  This also causes the two confusing contexts to
have different sets of active rules, because the one for `return_spec'
activates the altered rule for `return_spec' rather than the one for
`name'.

     param_spec:
                  type
             |    name_list ':' type
             ;
     return_spec:
                  type
             |    ID ':' type
             ;

\1f
File: bison.info,  Node: Stack Overflow,  Prev: Mystery Conflicts,  Up: Algorithm

Stack Overflow, and How to Avoid It
===================================

   The Bison parser stack can overflow if too many tokens are shifted
and not reduced.  When this happens, the parser function `yyparse'
returns a nonzero value, pausing only to call `yyerror' to report the
overflow.

   By defining the macro `YYMAXDEPTH', you can control how deep the
parser stack can become before a stack overflow occurs.  Define the
macro with a value that is an integer.  This value is the maximum number
of tokens that can be shifted (and not reduced) before overflow.  It
must be a constant expression whose value is known at compile time.

   The stack space allowed is not necessarily allocated.  If you
specify a large value for `YYMAXDEPTH', the parser actually allocates a
small stack at first, and then makes it bigger by stages as needed.
This increasing allocation happens automatically and silently.
Therefore, you do not need to make `YYMAXDEPTH' painfully small merely
to save space for ordinary inputs that do not need much stack.

   The default value of `YYMAXDEPTH', if you do not define it, is 10000.

   You can control how much stack is allocated initially by defining the
macro `YYINITDEPTH'.  This value too must be a compile-time constant
integer.  The default is 200.

\1f
File: bison.info,  Node: Error Recovery,  Next: Context Dependency,  Prev: Algorithm,  Up: Top

Error Recovery
**************

   It is not usually acceptable to have a program terminate on a parse
error.  For example, a compiler should recover sufficiently to parse the
rest of the input file and check it for errors; a calculator should
accept another expression.

   In a simple interactive command parser where each input is one line,
it may be sufficient to allow `yyparse' to return 1 on error and have
the caller ignore the rest of the input line when that happens (and
then call `yyparse' again).  But this is inadequate for a compiler,
because it forgets all the syntactic context leading up to the error.
A syntax error deep within a function in the compiler input should not
cause the compiler to treat the following line like the beginning of a
source file.

   You can define how to recover from a syntax error by writing rules to
recognize the special token `error'.  This is a terminal symbol that is
always defined (you need not declare it) and reserved for error
handling.  The Bison parser generates an `error' token whenever a
syntax error happens; if you have provided a rule to recognize this
token in the current context, the parse can continue.

   For example:

     stmnts:  /* empty string */
             | stmnts '\n'
             | stmnts exp '\n'
             | stmnts error '\n'

   The fourth rule in this example says that an error followed by a
newline makes a valid addition to any `stmnts'.

   What happens if a syntax error occurs in the middle of an `exp'?  The
error recovery rule, interpreted strictly, applies to the precise
sequence of a `stmnts', an `error' and a newline.  If an error occurs in
the middle of an `exp', there will probably be some additional tokens
and subexpressions on the stack after the last `stmnts', and there will
be tokens to read before the next newline.  So the rule is not
applicable in the ordinary way.

   But Bison can force the situation to fit the rule, by discarding
part of the semantic context and part of the input.  First it discards
states and objects from the stack until it gets back to a state in
which the `error' token is acceptable.  (This means that the
subexpressions already parsed are discarded, back to the last complete
`stmnts'.)  At this point the `error' token can be shifted.  Then, if
the old look-ahead token is not acceptable to be shifted next, the
parser reads tokens and discards them until it finds a token which is
acceptable.  In this example, Bison reads and discards input until the
next newline so that the fourth rule can apply.

   The choice of error rules in the grammar is a choice of strategies
for error recovery.  A simple and useful strategy is simply to skip the
rest of the current input line or current statement if an error is
detected:

     stmnt: error ';'  /* on error, skip until ';' is read */

   It is also useful to recover to the matching close-delimiter of an
opening-delimiter that has already been parsed.  Otherwise the
close-delimiter will probably appear to be unmatched, and generate
another, spurious error message:

     primary:  '(' expr ')'
             | '(' error ')'
             ...
             ;

   Error recovery strategies are necessarily guesses.  When they guess
wrong, one syntax error often leads to another.  In the above example,
the error recovery rule guesses that an error is due to bad input
within one `stmnt'.  Suppose that instead a spurious semicolon is
inserted in the middle of a valid `stmnt'.  After the error recovery
rule recovers from the first error, another syntax error will be found
straightaway, since the text following the spurious semicolon is also
an invalid `stmnt'.

   To prevent an outpouring of error messages, the parser will output
no error message for another syntax error that happens shortly after
the first; only after three consecutive input tokens have been
successfully shifted will error messages resume.

   Note that rules which accept the `error' token may have actions, just
as any other rules can.

   You can make error messages resume immediately by using the macro
`yyerrok' in an action.  If you do this in the error rule's action, no
error messages will be suppressed.  This macro requires no arguments;
`yyerrok;' is a valid C statement.

   The previous look-ahead token is reanalyzed immediately after an
error.  If this is unacceptable, then the macro `yyclearin' may be used
to clear this token.  Write the statement `yyclearin;' in the error
rule's action.

   For example, suppose that on a parse error, an error handling
routine is called that advances the input stream to some point where
parsing should once again commence.  The next symbol returned by the
lexical scanner is probably correct.  The previous look-ahead token
ought to be discarded with `yyclearin;'.

   The macro `YYRECOVERING' stands for an expression that has the value
1 when the parser is recovering from a syntax error, and 0 the rest of
the time.  A value of 1 indicates that error messages are currently
suppressed for new syntax errors.

\1f
File: bison.info,  Node: Context Dependency,  Next: Debugging,  Prev: Error Recovery,  Up: Top

Handling Context Dependencies
*****************************

   The Bison paradigm is to parse tokens first, then group them into
larger syntactic units.  In many languages, the meaning of a token is
affected by its context.  Although this violates the Bison paradigm,
certain techniques (known as "kludges") may enable you to write Bison
parsers for such languages.

* Menu:

* Semantic Tokens::   Token parsing can depend on the semantic context.
* Lexical Tie-ins::   Token parsing can depend on the syntactic context.
* Tie-in Recovery::   Lexical tie-ins have implications for how
                        error recovery rules must be written.

   (Actually, "kludge" means any technique that gets its job done but is
neither clean nor robust.)

\1f
File: bison.info,  Node: Semantic Tokens,  Next: Lexical Tie-ins,  Up: Context Dependency

Semantic Info in Token Types
============================

   The C language has a context dependency: the way an identifier is
used depends on what its current meaning is.  For example, consider
this:

     foo (x);

   This looks like a function call statement, but if `foo' is a typedef
name, then this is actually a declaration of `x'.  How can a Bison
parser for C decide how to parse this input?

   The method used in GNU C is to have two different token types,
`IDENTIFIER' and `TYPENAME'.  When `yylex' finds an identifier, it
looks up the current declaration of the identifier in order to decide
which token type to return: `TYPENAME' if the identifier is declared as
a typedef, `IDENTIFIER' otherwise.

   The grammar rules can then express the context dependency by the
choice of token type to recognize.  `IDENTIFIER' is accepted as an
expression, but `TYPENAME' is not.  `TYPENAME' can start a declaration,
but `IDENTIFIER' cannot.  In contexts where the meaning of the
identifier is _not_ significant, such as in declarations that can
shadow a typedef name, either `TYPENAME' or `IDENTIFIER' is
accepted--there is one rule for each of the two token types.

   This technique is simple to use if the decision of which kinds of
identifiers to allow is made at a place close to where the identifier is
parsed.  But in C this is not always so: C allows a declaration to
redeclare a typedef name provided an explicit type has been specified
earlier:

     typedef int foo, bar, lose;
     static foo (bar);        /* redeclare `bar' as static variable */
     static int foo (lose);   /* redeclare `foo' as function */

   Unfortunately, the name being declared is separated from the
declaration construct itself by a complicated syntactic structure--the
"declarator".

   As a result, part of the Bison parser for C needs to be duplicated,
with all the nonterminal names changed: once for parsing a declaration
in which a typedef name can be redefined, and once for parsing a
declaration in which that can't be done.  Here is a part of the
duplication, with actions omitted for brevity:

     initdcl:
               declarator maybeasm '='
               init
             | declarator maybeasm
             ;
     
     notype_initdcl:
               notype_declarator maybeasm '='
               init
             | notype_declarator maybeasm
             ;

Here `initdcl' can redeclare a typedef name, but `notype_initdcl'
cannot.  The distinction between `declarator' and `notype_declarator'
is the same sort of thing.

   There is some similarity between this technique and a lexical tie-in
(described next), in that information which alters the lexical analysis
is changed during parsing by other parts of the program.  The
difference is here the information is global, and is used for other
purposes in the program.  A true lexical tie-in has a special-purpose
flag controlled by the syntactic context.

\1f
File: bison.info,  Node: Lexical Tie-ins,  Next: Tie-in Recovery,  Prev: Semantic Tokens,  Up: Context Dependency

Lexical Tie-ins
===============

   One way to handle context-dependency is the "lexical tie-in": a flag
which is set by Bison actions, whose purpose is to alter the way tokens
are parsed.

   For example, suppose we have a language vaguely like C, but with a
special construct `hex (HEX-EXPR)'.  After the keyword `hex' comes an
expression in parentheses in which all integers are hexadecimal.  In
particular, the token `a1b' must be treated as an integer rather than
as an identifier if it appears in that context.  Here is how you can do
it:

     %{
     int hexflag;
     %}
     %%
     ...
     expr:   IDENTIFIER
             | constant
             | HEX '('
                     { hexflag = 1; }
               expr ')'
                     { hexflag = 0;
                        $$ = $4; }
             | expr '+' expr
                     { $$ = make_sum ($1, $3); }
             ...
             ;
     
     constant:
               INTEGER
             | STRING
             ;

Here we assume that `yylex' looks at the value of `hexflag'; when it is
nonzero, all integers are parsed in hexadecimal, and tokens starting
with letters are parsed as integers if possible.

   The declaration of `hexflag' shown in the C declarations section of
the parser file is needed to make it accessible to the actions (*note
The C Declarations Section: C Declarations.).  You must also write the
code in `yylex' to obey the flag.

\1f
File: bison.info,  Node: Tie-in Recovery,  Prev: Lexical Tie-ins,  Up: Context Dependency

Lexical Tie-ins and Error Recovery
==================================

   Lexical tie-ins make strict demands on any error recovery rules you
have.  *Note Error Recovery::.

   The reason for this is that the purpose of an error recovery rule is
to abort the parsing of one construct and resume in some larger
construct.  For example, in C-like languages, a typical error recovery
rule is to skip tokens until the next semicolon, and then start a new
statement, like this:

     stmt:   expr ';'
             | IF '(' expr ')' stmt { ... }
             ...
             error ';'
                     { hexflag = 0; }
             ;

   If there is a syntax error in the middle of a `hex (EXPR)'
construct, this error rule will apply, and then the action for the
completed `hex (EXPR)' will never run.  So `hexflag' would remain set
for the entire rest of the input, or until the next `hex' keyword,
causing identifiers to be misinterpreted as integers.

   To avoid this problem the error recovery rule itself clears
`hexflag'.

   There may also be an error recovery rule that works within
expressions.  For example, there could be a rule which applies within
parentheses and skips to the close-parenthesis:

     expr:   ...
             | '(' expr ')'
                     { $$ = $2; }
             | '(' error ')'
             ...

   If this rule acts within the `hex' construct, it is not going to
abort that construct (since it applies to an inner level of parentheses
within the construct).  Therefore, it should not clear the flag: the
rest of the `hex' construct should be parsed with the flag still in
effect.

   What if there is an error recovery rule which might abort out of the
`hex' construct or might not, depending on circumstances?  There is no
way you can write the action to determine whether a `hex' construct is
being aborted or not.  So if you are using a lexical tie-in, you had
better make sure your error recovery rules are not of this kind.  Each
rule must be such that you can be sure that it always will, or always
won't, have to clear the flag.

\1f
File: bison.info,  Node: Debugging,  Next: Invocation,  Prev: Context Dependency,  Up: Top

Debugging Your Parser
*********************

   If a Bison grammar compiles properly but doesn't do what you want
when it runs, the `yydebug' parser-trace feature can help you figure
out why.

   To enable compilation of trace facilities, you must define the macro
`YYDEBUG' when you compile the parser.  You could use `-DYYDEBUG=1' as
a compiler option or you could put `#define YYDEBUG 1' in the C
declarations section of the grammar file (*note The C Declarations
Section: C Declarations.).  Alternatively, use the `-t' option when you
run Bison (*note Invoking Bison: Invocation.).  We always define
`YYDEBUG' so that debugging is always possible.

   The trace facility uses `stderr', so you must add
`#include <stdio.h>' to the C declarations section unless it is already
there.

   Once you have compiled the program with trace facilities, the way to
request a trace is to store a nonzero value in the variable `yydebug'.
You can do this by making the C code do it (in `main', perhaps), or you
can alter the value with a C debugger.

   Each step taken by the parser when `yydebug' is nonzero produces a
line or two of trace information, written on `stderr'.  The trace
messages tell you these things:

   * Each time the parser calls `yylex', what kind of token was read.

   * Each time a token is shifted, the depth and complete contents of
     the state stack (*note Parser States::).

   * Each time a rule is reduced, which rule it is, and the complete
     contents of the state stack afterward.

   To make sense of this information, it helps to refer to the listing
file produced by the Bison `-v' option (*note Invoking Bison:
Invocation.).  This file shows the meaning of each state in terms of
positions in various rules, and also what each state will do with each
possible input token.  As you read the successive trace messages, you
can see that the parser is functioning according to its specification
in the listing file.  Eventually you will arrive at the place where
something undesirable happens, and you will see which parts of the
grammar are to blame.

   The parser file is a C program and you can use C debuggers on it,
but it's not easy to interpret what it is doing.  The parser function
is a finite-state machine interpreter, and aside from the actions it
executes the same code over and over.  Only the values of variables
show where in the grammar it is working.

   The debugging information normally gives the token type of each token
read, but not its semantic value.  You can optionally define a macro
named `YYPRINT' to provide a way to print the value.  If you define
`YYPRINT', it should take three arguments.  The parser will pass a
standard I/O stream, the numeric code for the token type, and the token
value (from `yylval').

   Here is an example of `YYPRINT' suitable for the multi-function
calculator (*note Declarations for `mfcalc': Mfcalc Decl.):

     #define YYPRINT(file, type, value)   yyprint (file, type, value)
     
     static void
     yyprint (FILE *file, int type, YYSTYPE value)
     {
       if (type == VAR)
         fprintf (file, " %s", value.tptr->name);
       else if (type == NUM)
         fprintf (file, " %d", value.val);
     }

\1f
File: bison.info,  Node: Invocation,  Next: Table of Symbols,  Prev: Debugging,  Up: Top

Invoking Bison
**************

   The usual way to invoke Bison is as follows:

     bison INFILE

   Here INFILE is the grammar file name, which usually ends in `.y'.
The parser file's name is made by replacing the `.y' with `.tab.c'.
Thus, the `bison foo.y' filename yields `foo.tab.c', and the `bison
hack/foo.y' filename yields `hack/foo.tab.c'. It's is also possible, in
case you are writting C++ code instead of C in your grammar file, to
name it `foo.ypp' or `foo.y++'. Then, the output files will take an
extention like the given one as input (repectively `foo.tab.cpp' and
`foo.tab.c++').  This feature takes effect with all options that
manipulate filenames like `-o' or `-d'.

   For example :

     bison -d INFILE.YXX

will produce `infile.tab.cxx' and `infile.tab.hxx'. and

     bison -d INFILE.Y -o OUTPUT.C++

will produce `output.c++' and `outfile.h++'.

* Menu:

* Bison Options::     All the options described in detail,
                        in alphabetical order by short options.
* Environment Variables::  Variables which affect Bison execution.
* Option Cross Key::  Alphabetical list of long options.
* VMS Invocation::    Bison command syntax on VMS.

\1f
File: bison.info,  Node: Bison Options,  Next: Environment Variables,  Up: Invocation

Bison Options
=============

   Bison supports both traditional single-letter options and mnemonic
long option names.  Long option names are indicated with `--' instead of
`-'.  Abbreviations for option names are allowed as long as they are
unique.  When a long option takes an argument, like `--file-prefix',
connect the option name and the argument with `='.

   Here is a list of options that can be used with Bison, alphabetized
by short option.  It is followed by a cross key alphabetized by long
option.

Operations modes:
`-h'
`--help'
     Print a summary of the command-line options to Bison and exit.

`-V'
`--version'
     Print the version number of Bison and exit.

`-y'
`--yacc'
`--fixed-output-files'
     Equivalent to `-o y.tab.c'; the parser output file is called
     `y.tab.c', and the other outputs are called `y.output' and
     `y.tab.h'.  The purpose of this option is to imitate Yacc's output
     file name conventions.  Thus, the following shell script can
     substitute for Yacc:

          bison -y $*

Tuning the parser:

`-S FILE'
`--skeleton=FILE'
     Specify the skeleton to use.  You probably don't need this option
     unless you are developing Bison.

`-t'
`--debug'
     Output a definition of the macro `YYDEBUG' into the parser file, so
     that the debugging facilities are compiled.  *Note Debugging Your
     Parser: Debugging.

`--locations'
     Pretend that `%locactions' was specified.  *Note Decl Summary::.

`-p PREFIX'
`--name-prefix=PREFIX'
     Rename the external symbols used in the parser so that they start
     with PREFIX instead of `yy'.  The precise list of symbols renamed
     is `yyparse', `yylex', `yyerror', `yynerrs', `yylval', `yychar'
     and `yydebug'.

     For example, if you use `-p c', the names become `cparse', `clex',
     and so on.

     *Note Multiple Parsers in the Same Program: Multiple Parsers.

`-l'
`--no-lines'
     Don't put any `#line' preprocessor commands in the parser file.
     Ordinarily Bison puts them in the parser file so that the C
     compiler and debuggers will associate errors with your source
     file, the grammar file.  This option causes them to associate
     errors with the parser file, treating it as an independent source
     file in its own right.

`-n'
`--no-parser'
     Pretend that `%no_parser' was specified.  *Note Decl Summary::.

`-k'
`--token-table'
     Pretend that `%token_table' was specified.  *Note Decl Summary::.

Adjust the output:

`-d'
     Pretend that `%verbose' was specified, i.e., write an extra output
     file containing macro definitions for the token type names defined
     in the grammar and the semantic value type `YYSTYPE', as well as a
     few `extern' variable declarations.  *Note Decl Summary::.

`--defines=DEFINES-FILE'
     The behaviour of -DEFINES is the same than `-d'. The only
     difference is that it has an optionnal argument which is the name
     of the output filename.

`-b FILE-PREFIX'
`--file-prefix=PREFIX'
     Specify a prefix to use for all Bison output file names.  The
     names are chosen as if the input file were named `PREFIX.c'.

`-v'
`--verbose'
     Pretend that `%verbose' was specified, i.e, write an extra output
     file containing verbose descriptions of the grammar and parser.
     *Note Decl Summary::, for more.

`-o OUTFILE'
`--output-file=OUTFILE'
     Specify the name OUTFILE for the parser file.

     The other output files' names are constructed from OUTFILE as
     described under the `-v' and `-d' options.

`-g'
     Output a VCG definition of the LALR(1) grammar automaton computed
     by Bison. If the grammar file is `foo.y', the VCG output file will
     be `foo.vcg'.

`--graph=GRAPH-FILE'
     The behaviour of -GRAPH is the same than `-g'. The only difference
     is that it has an optionnal argument which is the name of the
     output graph filename.

\1f
File: bison.info,  Node: Environment Variables,  Next: Option Cross Key,  Prev: Bison Options,  Up: Invocation

Environment Variables
=====================

   Here is a list of environment variables which affect the way Bison
runs.

`BISON_SIMPLE'
`BISON_HAIRY'
     Much of the parser generated by Bison is copied verbatim from a
     file called `bison.simple'.  If Bison cannot find that file, or if
     you would like to direct Bison to use a different copy, setting the
     environment variable `BISON_SIMPLE' to the path of the file will
     cause Bison to use that copy instead.

     When the `%semantic_parser' declaration is used, Bison copies from
     a file called `bison.hairy' instead.  The location of this file can
     also be specified or overridden in a similar fashion, with the
     `BISON_HAIRY' environment variable.

\1f
File: bison.info,  Node: Option Cross Key,  Next: VMS Invocation,  Prev: Environment Variables,  Up: Invocation

Option Cross Key
================

   Here is a list of options, alphabetized by long option, to help you
find the corresponding short option.

     --debug                               -t
     --defines=DEFINES-FILE          -d
     --file-prefix=PREFIX                  -b FILE-PREFIX
     --fixed-output-files --yacc           -y
     --graph=GRAPH-FILE              -d
     --help                                -h
     --name-prefix=PREFIX                  -p NAME-PREFIX
     --no-lines                            -l
     --no-parser                           -n
     --output-file=OUTFILE                 -o OUTFILE
     --token-table                         -k
     --verbose                             -v
     --version                             -V

\1f
File: bison.info,  Node: VMS Invocation,  Prev: Option Cross Key,  Up: Invocation

Invoking Bison under VMS
========================

   The command line syntax for Bison on VMS is a variant of the usual
Bison command syntax--adapted to fit VMS conventions.

   To find the VMS equivalent for any Bison option, start with the long
option, and substitute a `/' for the leading `--', and substitute a `_'
for each `-' in the name of the long option.  For example, the
following invocation under VMS:

     bison /debug/name_prefix=bar foo.y

is equivalent to the following command under POSIX.

     bison --debug --name-prefix=bar foo.y

   The VMS file system does not permit filenames such as `foo.tab.c'.
In the above example, the output file would instead be named
`foo_tab.c'.