a semantic value (the value of an integer,
the name of an identifier, etc.).
* Semantic Actions:: Each rule can have an action containing C code.
-* GLR Parsers:: Writing parsers for general context-free languages
+* GLR Parsers:: Writing parsers for general context-free languages.
+* Simple GLR Parsers:: Using GLR in its simplest form.
* Locations Overview:: Tracking Locations.
* Bison Parser:: What are Bison's input and output,
how is the output used?
a semantic value (the value of an integer,
the name of an identifier, etc.).
* Semantic Actions:: Each rule can have an action containing C code.
-* GLR Parsers:: Writing parsers for general context-free languages
+* GLR Parsers:: Writing parsers for general context-free languages.
+* Simple GLR Parsers:: Using GLR in its simplest form.
* Locations Overview:: Tracking Locations.
* Bison Parser:: What are Bison's input and output,
how is the output used?
%@}
@end example
+@node Simple GLR Parsers
+@section Using @acronym{GLR} in its Simplest Form
+@cindex @acronym{GLR} parsing, unambiguous grammars
+@cindex generalized @acronym{LR} (@acronym{GLR}) parsing, unambiguous grammars
+@findex %glr-parser
+@findex %expect-rr
+@cindex conflicts
+@cindex reduce/reduce conflicts
+
+The C++ example for @acronym{GLR} (@pxref{GLR Parsers}) explains how to use
+the @acronym{GLR} parsing algorithm with some advanced features such as
+@samp{%dprec} and @samp{%merge} to handle syntactically ambiguous
+grammars. However, the @acronym{GLR} algorithm can also be used in a simpler
+way to parse grammars that are unambiguous, but fail to be @acronym{LALR}(1).
+Such grammars typically require more than one symbol of lookahead,
+or (in rare cases) fall into the category of grammars in which the
+@acronym{LALR}(1) algorithm throws away too much information (they are in
+@acronym{LR}(1), but not @acronym{LALR}(1), @ref{Mystery Conflicts}).
+
+Here is an example of this situation, using a problem that
+arises in the declaration of enumerated and subrange types in the
+programming language Pascal. These declarations look like this:
+
+@example
+type subrange = lo .. hi;
+type enum = (a, b, c);
+@end example
+
+@noindent
+The original language standard allows only numeric
+literals and constant identifiers for the subrange bounds (@samp{lo}
+and @samp{hi}), but Extended Pascal (ISO/IEC 10206:1990) and many other
+Pascal implementations allow arbitrary expressions there. This gives
+rise to the following situation, containing a superfluous pair of
+parentheses:
+
+@example
+type subrange = (a) .. b;
+@end example
+
+@noindent
+Compare this to the following declaration of an enumerated
+type with only one value:
+
+@example
+type enum = (a);
+@end example
+
+@noindent
+(These declarations are contrived, but they are syntactically
+valid, and more-complicated cases can come up in practical programs.)
+
+These two declarations look identical until the @samp{..} token.
+With normal @acronym{LALR}(1) one-token look-ahead it is not
+possible to decide between the two forms when the identifier
+@samp{a} is parsed. It is, however, desirable
+for a parser to decide this, since in the latter case
+@samp{a} must become a new identifier to represent the enumeration
+value, while in the former case @samp{a} must be evaluated with its
+current meaning, which may be a constant or even a function call.
+
+You could parse @samp{(a)} as an ``unspecified identifier in parentheses'',
+to be resolved later, but this typically requires substantial
+contortions in both semantic actions and large parts of the
+grammar, where the parentheses are nested in the recursive rules for
+expressions.
+
+You might think of using the lexer to distinguish between the two
+forms by returning different tokens for currently defined and
+undefined identifiers. But if these declarations occur in a local
+scope, and @samp{a} is defined in an outer scope, then both forms
+are possible---either locally redefining @samp{a}, or using the
+value of @samp{a} from the outer scope. So this approach cannot
+work.
+
+A solution to this problem is to use a @acronym{GLR} parser in its simplest
+form, i.e., without using special features such as @samp{%dprec} and
+@samp{%merge}. When the @acronym{GLR} parser reaches the critical state, it
+simply splits into two branches and pursues both syntax rules
+simultaneously. Sooner or later, one of them runs into a parsing
+error. If there is a @samp{..} token before the next
+@samp{;}, the rule for enumerated types fails since it cannot
+accept @samp{..} anywhere; otherwise, the subrange type rule
+fails since it requires a @samp{..} token. So one of the branches
+fails silently, and the other one continues normally, performing
+all the intermediate actions that were postponed during the split.
+
+If the input is syntactically incorrect, both branches fail and the parser
+reports a syntax error as usual.
+
+The effect of all this is that the parser seems to ``guess'' the
+correct branch to take, or in other words, it seems to use more
+look-ahead than the underlying @acronym{LALR}(1) algorithm actually allows
+for. In this example, @acronym{LALR}(2) would suffice, but also some cases
+that are not @acronym{LALR}(@math{k}) for any @math{k} can be handled this way.
+
+Since there can be only two branches and at least one of them
+must fail, you need not worry about merging the branches by
+using dynamic precedence or @samp{%merge}.
+
+Another potential problem of @acronym{GLR} does not arise here, either. In
+general, a @acronym{GLR} parser can take quadratic or cubic worst-case time,
+and the current Bison parser even takes exponential time and space
+for some grammars. In practice, this rarely happens, and for many
+grammars it is possible to prove that it cannot happen. In
+in the present example, there is only one conflict between two
+rules, and the type-declaration context where the conflict
+arises cannot be nested. So the number of
+branches that can exist at any time is limited by the constant 2,
+and the parsing time is still linear.
+
+So here we have a case where we can use the benefits of @acronym{GLR}, almost
+without disadvantages. There are two things to note, though.
+First, one should carefully analyze the conflicts reported by
+Bison to make sure that @acronym{GLR} splitting is done only where it is
+intended to be. A @acronym{GLR} parser splitting inadvertently may cause
+problems less obvious than an @acronym{LALR} parser statically choosing the
+wrong alternative in a conflict.
+
+Second, interactions with the lexer (@pxref{Semantic Tokens}) must
+be considered with great care. Since a split parser consumes tokens
+without performing any actions during the split, the lexer cannot
+obtain information via parser actions. Some cases of
+lexer interactions can simply be eliminated by using @acronym{GLR}, i.e.,
+shifting the complications from the lexer to the parser. Remaining
+cases have to be checked for safety.
+
+In our example, it would be safe for the lexer to return tokens
+based on their current meanings in some symbol table, because no new
+symbols are defined in the middle of a type declaration. Though it
+is possible for a parser to define the enumeration
+constants as they are parsed, before the type declaration is
+completed, it actually makes no difference since they cannot be used
+within the same enumerated type declaration.
+
+Here is a Bison grammar corresponding to the example above. It
+parses a vastly simplified form of Pascal type declarations.
+
+@example
+%token TYPE DOTDOT ID
+
+@group
+%left '+' '-'
+%left '*' '/'
+@end group
+
+%%
+
+@group
+type_decl:
+ TYPE ID '=' type ';'
+;
+@end group
+
+@group
+type: '(' id_list ')'
+ | expr DOTDOT expr
+;
+@end group
+
+@group
+id_list: ID
+ | id_list ',' ID
+;
+@end group
+
+@group
+expr: '(' expr ')'
+ | expr '+' expr
+ | expr '-' expr
+ | expr '*' expr
+ | expr '/' expr
+ | ID
+;
+@end group
+@end example
+
+When used as a normal @acronym{LALR}(1) grammar, Bison correctly complains
+about one reduce/reduce conflict. In the conflicting situation the
+parser chooses one of the alternatives, arbitrarily the one
+declared first. Therefore the following correct input is not
+recognized:
+
+@example
+type t = (a) .. b;
+@end example
+
+The parser can be turned into a @acronym{GLR} parser, while also telling Bison
+to be silent about the one known reduce/reduce conflict, simply by
+adding these two declarations to the Bison input file:
+
+@example
+%glr-parser
+%expect-rr 1
+@end example
+
+@noindent
+No change in the grammar itself is required. Now the
+parser recognizes all valid declarations, according to the
+limited syntax above, transparently. In fact, the user does not even
+notice when the parser splits.
+
@node Locations Overview
@section Locations
@cindex location
For example, this:
@example
-exp : NUM | exp exp '+' @{$$ = $1 + $2; @} | @dots{}
+exp : NUM | exp exp '+' @{$$ = $1 + $2; @} | @dots{} ;
@end example
@noindent
exp: NUM
| exp exp '+' @{ $$ = $1 + $2; @}
| @dots{}
+;
@end example
@noindent
@xref{Tracing, ,Tracing Your Parser}.
@deffn {Directive} %defines
-Write an extra output file containing macro definitions for the token
-type names defined in the grammar and the semantic value type
-@code{YYSTYPE}, as well as a few @code{extern} variable declarations.
-
+Write a header file containing macro definitions for the token type
+names defined in the grammar as well as a few other declarations.
If the parser output file is named @file{@var{name}.c} then this file
is named @file{@var{name}.h}.
-This output file is essential if you wish to put the definition of
-@code{yylex} in a separate source file, because @code{yylex} needs to
-be able to refer to token type codes and the variable
-@code{yylval}. @xref{Token Values, ,Semantic Values of Tokens}.
+Unless @code{YYSTYPE} is already defined as a macro, the output header
+declares @code{YYSTYPE}. Therefore, if you are using a @code{%union}
+(@pxref{Multiple Types, ,More Than One Value Type}) with components
+that require other definitions, or if you have defined a
+@code{YYSTYPE} macro (@pxref{Value Type, ,Data Types of Semantic
+Values}), you need to arrange for these definitions to be propagated to
+all modules, e.g., by putting them in a
+prerequisite header that is included both by your parser and by any
+other module that needs @code{YYSTYPE}.
+
+Unless your parser is pure, the output header declares @code{yylval}
+as an external variable. @xref{Pure Decl, ,A Pure (Reentrant)
+Parser}.
+
+If you have also used locations, the output header declares
+@code{YYLTYPE} and @code{yylloc} using a protocol similar to that of
+@code{YYSTYPE} and @code{yylval}. @xref{Locations, ,Tracking
+Locations}.
+
+This output file is normally essential if you wish to put the
+definition of @code{yylex} in a separate source file, because
+@code{yylex} typically needs to be able to refer to the
+above-mentioned declarations and to the token type codes.
+@xref{Token Values, ,Semantic Values of Tokens}.
@end deffn
@deffn {Directive} %destructor
Bison produces @emph{deterministic} parsers that choose uniquely
when to reduce and which reduction to apply
-based on a summary of the preceding input and on one extra token of lookahead.
+based on a summary of the preceding input and on one extra token of look-ahead.
As a result, normal Bison handles a proper subset of the family of
context-free languages.
Ambiguous grammars, since they have strings with more than one possible
sequence of reductions cannot have deterministic parsers in this sense.
The same is true of languages that require more than one symbol of
-lookahead, since the parser lacks the information necessary to make a
+look-ahead, since the parser lacks the information necessary to make a
decision at the point it must be made in a shift-reduce parser.
Finally, as previously mentioned (@pxref{Mystery Conflicts}),
there are languages where Bison's particular choice of how to
symbol (here, @code{exp}). When the parser returns to this state right
after having reduced a rule that produced an @code{exp}, the control
flow jumps to state 2. If there is no such transition on a nonterminal
-symbol, and the lookahead is a @code{NUM}, then this token is shifted on
+symbol, and the look-ahead is a @code{NUM}, then this token is shifted on
the parse stack, and the control flow jumps to state 1. Any other
-lookahead triggers a syntax error.''
+look-ahead triggers a syntax error.''
@cindex core, item set
@cindex item set core
@cindex kernel, item set
@cindex item set core
Even though the only active rule in state 0 seems to be rule 0, the
-report lists @code{NUM} as a lookahead symbol because @code{NUM} can be
+report lists @code{NUM} as a look-ahead token because @code{NUM} can be
at the beginning of any rule deriving an @code{exp}. By default Bison
reports the so-called @dfn{core} or @dfn{kernel} of the item set, but if
you want to see more detail you can invoke @command{bison} with
@end example
@noindent
-the rule 5, @samp{exp: NUM;}, is completed. Whatever the lookahead
+the rule 5, @samp{exp: NUM;}, is completed. Whatever the look-ahead token
(@samp{$default}), the parser will reduce it. If it was coming from
state 0, then, after this reduction it will return to state 0, and will
jump to state 2 (@samp{exp: go to state 2}).
@noindent
In state 2, the automaton can only shift a symbol. For instance,
-because of the item @samp{exp -> exp . '+' exp}, if the lookahead if
+because of the item @samp{exp -> exp . '+' exp}, if the look-ahead if
@samp{+}, it will be shifted on the parse stack, and the automaton
control will jump to state 4, corresponding to the item @samp{exp -> exp
'+' . exp}. Since there is no default action, any other token than
$default reduce using rule 1 (exp)
@end example
-Indeed, there are two actions associated to the lookahead @samp{/}:
+Indeed, there are two actions associated to the look-ahead @samp{/}:
either shifting (and going to state 7), or reducing rule 1. The
conflict means that either the grammar is ambiguous, or the parser lacks
information to make the right decision. Indeed the grammar is
shifting the next token and going to the corresponding state, or
reducing a single rule. In the other cases, i.e., when shifting
@emph{and} reducing is possible or when @emph{several} reductions are
-possible, the lookahead is required to select the action. State 8 is
-one such state: if the lookahead is @samp{*} or @samp{/} then the action
+possible, the look-ahead is required to select the action. State 8 is
+one such state: if the look-ahead is @samp{*} or @samp{/} then the action
is shifting, otherwise the action is reducing rule 1. In other words,
the first two items, corresponding to rule 1, are not eligible when the
-lookahead is @samp{*}, since we specified that @samp{*} has higher
-precedence that @samp{+}. More generally, some items are eligible only
-with some set of possible lookaheads. When run with
-@option{--report=lookahead}, Bison specifies these lookaheads:
+look-ahead token is @samp{*}, since we specified that @samp{*} has higher
+precedence than @samp{+}. More generally, some items are eligible only
+with some set of possible look-ahead tokens. When run with
+@option{--report=look-ahead}, Bison specifies these look-ahead tokens:
@example
state 8
@itemx --defines
Pretend that @code{%defines} 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 @code{YYSTYPE}, as well as a few
-@code{extern} variable declarations. @xref{Decl Summary}.
+the grammar, as well as a few other declarations. @xref{Decl Summary}.
@item --defines=@var{defines-file}
Same as above, but save in the file @var{defines-file}.
Description of the grammar, conflicts (resolved and unresolved), and
@acronym{LALR} automaton.
-@item lookahead
+@item look-ahead
Implies @code{state} and augments the description of the automaton with
-each rule's lookahead set.
+each rule's look-ahead set.
@item itemset
Implies @code{state} and augments the description of the automaton with
projects / bison.git / blobdiff