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 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.  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 ;  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.  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.  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.  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.)  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.  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  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::).  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 ;  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 ;  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.  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.  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.)  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.  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.  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.  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 ' 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); }  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.  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' `--defines' 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::. `-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.  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.  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 -d --file-prefix=PREFIX -b FILE-PREFIX --fixed-output-files --yacc -y --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  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'.