+@node GLR Parsers
+@section Writing @acronym{GLR} Parsers
+@cindex @acronym{GLR} parsing
+@cindex generalized @acronym{LR} (@acronym{GLR}) parsing
+@findex %glr-parser
+@cindex conflicts
+@cindex shift/reduce conflicts
+
+In some grammars, there will be cases where Bison's standard
+@acronym{LALR}(1) parsing algorithm cannot decide whether to apply a
+certain grammar rule at a given point. That is, it may not be able to
+decide (on the basis of the input read so far) which of two possible
+reductions (applications of a grammar rule) applies, or whether to apply
+a reduction or read more of the input and apply a reduction later in the
+input. These are known respectively as @dfn{reduce/reduce} conflicts
+(@pxref{Reduce/Reduce}), and @dfn{shift/reduce} conflicts
+(@pxref{Shift/Reduce}).
+
+To use a grammar that is not easily modified to be @acronym{LALR}(1), a
+more general parsing algorithm is sometimes necessary. If you include
+@code{%glr-parser} among the Bison declarations in your file
+(@pxref{Grammar Outline}), the result will be a Generalized @acronym{LR}
+(@acronym{GLR}) parser. These parsers handle Bison grammars that
+contain no unresolved conflicts (i.e., after applying precedence
+declarations) identically to @acronym{LALR}(1) parsers. However, when
+faced with unresolved shift/reduce and reduce/reduce conflicts,
+@acronym{GLR} parsers use the simple expedient of doing both,
+effectively cloning the parser to follow both possibilities. Each of
+the resulting parsers can again split, so that at any given time, there
+can be any number of possible parses being explored. The parsers
+proceed in lockstep; that is, all of them consume (shift) a given input
+symbol before any of them proceed to the next. Each of the cloned
+parsers eventually meets one of two possible fates: either it runs into
+a parsing error, in which case it simply vanishes, or it merges with
+another parser, because the two of them have reduced the input to an
+identical set of symbols.
+
+During the time that there are multiple parsers, semantic actions are
+recorded, but not performed. When a parser disappears, its recorded
+semantic actions disappear as well, and are never performed. When a
+reduction makes two parsers identical, causing them to merge, Bison
+records both sets of semantic actions. Whenever the last two parsers
+merge, reverting to the single-parser case, Bison resolves all the
+outstanding actions either by precedences given to the grammar rules
+involved, or by performing both actions, and then calling a designated
+user-defined function on the resulting values to produce an arbitrary
+merged result.
+
+Let's consider an example, vastly simplified from a C++ grammar.
+
+@example
+%@{
+ #include <stdio.h>
+ #define YYSTYPE char const *
+ int yylex (void);
+ void yyerror (char const *);
+%@}
+
+%token TYPENAME ID
+
+%right '='
+%left '+'
+
+%glr-parser
+
+%%
+
+prog :
+ | prog stmt @{ printf ("\n"); @}
+ ;
+
+stmt : expr ';' %dprec 1
+ | decl %dprec 2
+ ;
+
+expr : ID @{ printf ("%s ", $$); @}
+ | TYPENAME '(' expr ')'
+ @{ printf ("%s <cast> ", $1); @}
+ | expr '+' expr @{ printf ("+ "); @}
+ | expr '=' expr @{ printf ("= "); @}
+ ;
+
+decl : TYPENAME declarator ';'
+ @{ printf ("%s <declare> ", $1); @}
+ | TYPENAME declarator '=' expr ';'
+ @{ printf ("%s <init-declare> ", $1); @}
+ ;
+
+declarator : ID @{ printf ("\"%s\" ", $1); @}
+ | '(' declarator ')'
+ ;
+@end example
+
+@noindent
+This models a problematic part of the C++ grammar---the ambiguity between
+certain declarations and statements. For example,
+
+@example
+T (x) = y+z;
+@end example
+
+@noindent
+parses as either an @code{expr} or a @code{stmt}
+(assuming that @samp{T} is recognized as a @code{TYPENAME} and
+@samp{x} as an @code{ID}).
+Bison detects this as a reduce/reduce conflict between the rules
+@code{expr : ID} and @code{declarator : ID}, which it cannot resolve at the
+time it encounters @code{x} in the example above. The two @code{%dprec}
+declarations, however, give precedence to interpreting the example as a
+@code{decl}, which implies that @code{x} is a declarator.
+The parser therefore prints
+
+@example
+"x" y z + T <init-declare>
+@end example
+
+Consider a different input string for this parser:
+
+@example
+T (x) + y;
+@end example
+
+@noindent
+Here, there is no ambiguity (this cannot be parsed as a declaration).
+However, at the time the Bison parser encounters @code{x}, it does not
+have enough information to resolve the reduce/reduce conflict (again,
+between @code{x} as an @code{expr} or a @code{declarator}). In this
+case, no precedence declaration is used. Instead, the parser splits
+into two, one assuming that @code{x} is an @code{expr}, and the other
+assuming @code{x} is a @code{declarator}. The second of these parsers
+then vanishes when it sees @code{+}, and the parser prints
+
+@example
+x T <cast> y +
+@end example
+
+Suppose that instead of resolving the ambiguity, you wanted to see all
+the possibilities. For this purpose, we must @dfn{merge} the semantic
+actions of the two possible parsers, rather than choosing one over the
+other. To do so, you could change the declaration of @code{stmt} as
+follows:
+
+@example
+stmt : expr ';' %merge <stmtMerge>
+ | decl %merge <stmtMerge>
+ ;
+@end example
+
+@noindent
+
+and define the @code{stmtMerge} function as:
+
+@example
+static YYSTYPE
+stmtMerge (YYSTYPE x0, YYSTYPE x1)
+@{
+ printf ("<OR> ");
+ return "";
+@}
+@end example
+
+@noindent
+with an accompanying forward declaration
+in the C declarations at the beginning of the file:
+
+@example
+%@{
+ #define YYSTYPE char const *
+ static YYSTYPE stmtMerge (YYSTYPE x0, YYSTYPE x1);
+%@}
+@end example
+
+@noindent
+With these declarations, the resulting parser will parse the first example
+as both an @code{expr} and a @code{decl}, and print
+
+@example
+"x" y z + T <init-declare> x T <cast> y z + = <OR>
+@end example
+
+@sp 1
+
+@cindex @code{incline}
+@cindex @acronym{GLR} parsers and @code{inline}
+The @acronym{GLR} parsers require a compiler for @acronym{ISO} C89 or
+later. In addition, they use the @code{inline} keyword, which is not
+C89, but is C99 and is a common extension in pre-C99 compilers. It is
+up to the user of these parsers to handle
+portability issues. For instance, if using Autoconf and the Autoconf
+macro @code{AC_C_INLINE}, a mere
+
+@example
+%@{
+ #include <config.h>
+%@}
+@end example
+
+@noindent
+will suffice. Otherwise, we suggest
+
+@example
+%@{
+ #if __STDC_VERSION__ < 199901 && ! defined __GNUC__ && ! defined inline
+ #define inline
+ #endif
+%@}
+@end example
+
+@node Locations Overview
+@section Locations
+@cindex location
+@cindex textual location
+@cindex location, textual
+
+Many applications, like interpreters or compilers, have to produce verbose
+and useful error messages. To achieve this, one must be able to keep track of
+the @dfn{textual location}, or @dfn{location}, of each syntactic construct.
+Bison provides a mechanism for handling these locations.
+
+Each token has a semantic value. In a similar fashion, each token has an
+associated location, but the type of locations is the same for all tokens and
+groupings. Moreover, the output parser is equipped with a default data
+structure for storing locations (@pxref{Locations}, for more details).
+
+Like semantic values, locations can be reached in actions using a dedicated
+set of constructs. In the example above, the location of the whole grouping
+is @code{@@$}, while the locations of the subexpressions are @code{@@1} and
+@code{@@3}.
+
+When a rule is matched, a default action is used to compute the semantic value
+of its left hand side (@pxref{Actions}). In the same way, another default
+action is used for locations. However, the action for locations is general
+enough for most cases, meaning there is usually no need to describe for each
+rule how @code{@@$} should be formed. When building a new location for a given
+grouping, the default behavior of the output parser is to take the beginning
+of the first symbol, and the end of the last symbol.
+
+@node Bison Parser
projects / bison.git / blobdiff