-*- outline -*-
+* Short term
+** Use syntax_error from the scanner?
+This would provide a means to raise syntax error from function called
+from the scanner. Actually, there is no good solution to report a
+lexical error in general. Usually they are kept at the scanner level
+only, ignoring the guilty token. But that might not be the best bet,
+since we don't benefit from the syntactic error recovery.
+
+We still have the possibility to return an invalid token number, which
+does the trick. But then the error message from the parser is poor
+(something like "unexpected $undefined"). Since the scanner probably
+already reported the error, we should directly enter error-recovery,
+without reporting the error message (i.e., YYERROR's semantics).
+
+Back to lalr1.cc (whose name is now quite unfortunate, since it also
+covers lr and ielr), if we support exceptions from yylex, should we
+propose a lexical_error in addition to syntax_error? Should they have
+a common root, say parse_error? Should syntax_error be renamed
+syntactic_error for consistency with lexical_error?
+
+** Variable names.
+What should we name `variant' and `lex_symbol'?
+
+** Use b4_symbol in all the skeleton
+Then remove the older system, including the tables generated by
+output.c
+
+** Update the documentation on gnu.org
+
+** Get rid of fake #lines [Bison: ...]
+Possibly as simple as checking whether the column number is nonnegative.
+
+I have seen messages like the following from GCC.
+
+<built-in>:0: fatal error: opening dependency file .deps/libltdl/argz.Tpo: No such file or directory
+
+
+** Discuss about %printer/%destroy in the case of C++.
+It would be very nice to provide the symbol classes with an operator<<
+and a destructor. Unfortunately the syntax we have chosen for
+%destroy and %printer make them hard to reuse. For instance, the user
+is invited to write something like
+
+ %printer { debug_stream() << $$; } <my_type>;
+
+which is hard to reuse elsewhere since it wants to use
+"debug_stream()" to find the stream to use. The same applies to
+%destroy: we told the user she could use the members of the Parser
+class in the printers/destructors, which is not good for an operator<<
+since it is no longer bound to a particular parser, it's just a
+(standalone symbol).
+
+** Rename LR0.cc
+as lr0.cc, why upper case?
+
+** bench several bisons.
+Enhance bench.pl with %b to run different bisons.
+
+** Use b4_symbol everywhere.
+Move its definition in the more standard places and deploy it in other
+skeletons.
+
+* Various
+** YYPRINT
+glr.c inherits its symbol_print function from c.m4, which supports
+YYPRINT. But to use YYPRINT yytoknum is needed, which not defined by
+glr.c.
+
+Anyway, IMHO YYPRINT is obsolete and should be restricted to yacc.c.
+
+** YYERRCODE
+Defined to 256, but not used, not documented. Probably the token
+number for the error token, which POSIX wants to be 256, but which
+Bison might renumber if the user used number 256. Keep fix and doc?
+Throw away?
+
+Also, why don't we output the token name of the error token in the
+output? It is explicitly skipped:
+
+ /* Skip error token and tokens without identifier. */
+ if (sym != errtoken && id)
+
+Of course there are issues with name spaces, but if we disable we have
+something which seems to be more simpler and more consistent instead
+of the special case YYERRCODE.
+
+ enum yytokentype {
+ error = 256,
+ // ...
+ };
+
+
+We could (should?) also treat the case of the undef_token, which is
+numbered 257 for yylex, and 2 internal. Both appear for instance in
+toknum:
+
+ const unsigned short int
+ parser::yytoken_number_[] =
+ {
+ 0, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264,
+
+while here
+
+ enum yytokentype {
+ TOK_EOF = 0,
+ TOK_EQ = 258,
+
+so both 256 and 257 are "mysterious".
+
+ const char*
+ const parser::yytname_[] =
+ {
+ "\"end of command\"", "error", "$undefined", "\"=\"", "\"break\"",
+
+
+** YYFAIL
+It is seems to be *really* obsolete now, shall we remove it?
+
+** YYBACKUP
+There is no test about it, no examples in the doc, and I'm not sure
+what it should look like. For instance what follows crashes.
+
+ %error-verbose
+ %debug
+ %pure-parser
+ %code {
+ # include <stdio.h>
+ # include <stdlib.h>
+ # include <assert.h>
+
+ static void yyerror (const char *msg);
+ static int yylex (YYSTYPE *yylval);
+ }
+ %%
+ exp:
+ 'a' { printf ("a: %d\n", $1); }
+ | 'b' { YYBACKUP('a', 123); }
+ ;
+ %%
+ static int
+ yylex (YYSTYPE *yylval)
+ {
+ static char const input[] = "b";
+ static size_t toknum;
+ assert (toknum < sizeof input);
+ *yylval = (toknum + 1) * 10;
+ return input[toknum++];
+ }
+
+ static void
+ yyerror (const char *msg)
+ {
+ fprintf (stderr, "%s\n", msg);
+ }
+
+ int
+ main (void)
+ {
+ yydebug = !!getenv("YYDEBUG");
+ return yyparse ();
+ }
+
+** yychar == yyempty_
+The code in yyerrlab reads:
+
+ if (yychar <= YYEOF)
+ {
+ /* Return failure if at end of input. */
+ if (yychar == YYEOF)
+ YYABORT;
+ }
+
+There are only two yychar that can be <= YYEOF: YYEMPTY and YYEOF.
+But I can't produce the situation where yychar is YYEMPTY here, is it
+really possible? The test suite does not exercise this case.
+
+This shows that it would be interesting to manage to install skeleton
+coverage analysis to the test suite.
+
+** Table definitions
+It should be very easy to factor the definition of the various tables,
+including the separation bw declaration and definition. See for
+instance b4_table_define in lalr1.cc. This way, we could even factor
+C vs. C++ definitions.
+
+* From lalr1.cc to yacc.c
+** Single stack
+Merging the three stacks in lalr1.cc simplified the code, prompted for
+other improvements and also made it faster (probably because memory
+management is performed once instead of three times). I suggest that
+we do the same in yacc.c.
+
+** yysyntax_error
+The code bw glr.c and yacc.c is really alike, we can certainly factor
+some parts.
+
* Header guards
From Franc,ois: should we keep the directory part in the CPP guard?
find something clean (not like YYLSP_NEEDED...).
-* URGENT: Documenting C++ output
-Write a first documentation for C++ output.
-
+* Installation
* Documentation
Before releasing, make sure the documentation ("Understanding your
parser") refers to the current `output' format.
-
-* GLR & C++
-Currently, the GLR parser cannot compile with a C++ compiler.
-
-
* Report
+** Figures
+Some statistics about the grammar and the parser would be useful,
+especially when asking the user to send some information about the
+grammars she is working on. We should probably also include some
+information about the variables (I'm not sure for instance we even
+specify what LR variant was used).
+
** GLR
How would Paul like to display the conflicted actions? In particular,
-what when two reductions are possible on a given look-ahead token, but one is
+what when two reductions are possible on a given lookahead token, but one is
part of $default. Should we make the two reductions explicit, or just
keep $default? See the following point.
a sample text exhibiting the (LALR) ambiguity. See the paper from
DeRemer and Penello: they already provide the algorithm.
+** Statically check for potential ambiguities in GLR grammars. See
+<http://www.i3s.unice.fr/~schmitz/papers.html#expamb> for an approach.
-* Extensions
-** %destructor
-I think we should document it as experimental, and allow its use in
-the next releases. But we also need to port it to GLR. What about
-lalr1.cc? Well, read what Hans reported, maybe we don't want
-%detructor. On the other hand, there is no reason not to provide it:
-users can avoid its use.
+* Extensions
-** $foo
+** Labeling the symbols
Have a look at the Lemon parser generator: instead of $1, $2 etc. they
can name the values. This is much more pleasant. For instance:
symbol, and forgetting to shift all the $n to $n-1. If you are
unlucky, it compiles...
+But instead of using $a etc., we can use regular variables. And
+instead of using (), I propose to use `:' (again). Paul suggests
+supporting `->' in addition to `:' to separate LHS and RHS. In other
+words:
+
+ r:exp -> a:exp '+' b:exp { r = a + b; };
+
+That requires an significant improvement of the grammar parser. Using
+GLR would be nice. It also requires that Bison know the type of the
+symbols (which will be useful for %include anyway). So we have some
+time before...
+
+Note that there remains the problem of locations: `@r'?
+
+
** $-1
We should find a means to provide an access to values deep in the
stack. For instance, instead of
Or something like this.
-** yysymprint interface
-It should be improved, in particular when using Bison features such as
-locations, and YYPARSE_PARAMS. For the time being, it is almost
-recommended to yyprint to steal internal variables...
-
-** Several %unions
-I think this is a pleasant (but useless currently) feature, but in the
-future, I want a means to %include other bits of grammars, and _then_
-it will be important for the various bits to define their needs in
-%union.
-
-When implementing multiple-%union support, bare the following in mind:
-
-- when --yacc, this must be flagged as an error. Don't make it fatal
- though.
-
-- The #line must now appear *inside* the definition of yystype.
- Something like
-
- {
- #line 12 "foo.y"
- int ival;
- #line 23 "foo.y"
- char *sval;
- }
-
** %if and the like
It should be possible to have %if/%else/%endif. The implementation is
not clear: should it be lexical or syntactic. Vadim Maslow thinks it
part of %if. Akim Demaille thinks it should be in the parser, so as
to avoid falling into another CPP mistake.
-** -D, --define-muscle NAME=VALUE
-To define muscles via cli. Or maybe support directly NAME=VALUE?
-
** XML Output
There are couple of available extensions of Bison targeting some XML
output. Some day we should consider including them. One issue is
Some history of Bison and some bibliography would be most welcome.
Are there any Texinfo standards for bibliography?
-
+** %printer
+Wow, %printer is not documented. Clearly mark YYPRINT as obsolete.
* Java, Fortran, etc.
-** Java
-
-There are a couple of proposed outputs:
-
-- BYACC/J
- which is based on Byacc.
- <http://troi.lincom-asg.com/~rjamison/byacc/>
-
-- Bison Java
- which is based on Bison.
- <http://www.goice.co.jp/member/mo/hack-progs/bison-java.html>
-
-Sebastien Serrurier (serrur_s@epita.fr) is working on this: he is
-expected to contact the authors, design the output, and implement it
-into Bison.
-
-
* Coding system independence
Paul notes:
PDP-10 ports :-) but they should probably be documented
somewhere.
-
+ More importantly, Bison does not currently allow NUL bytes in
+ tokens, either via escapes (e.g., "x\0y") or via a NUL byte in
+ the source code. This should get fixed.
* --graph
-Show reductions. []
+Show reductions.
* Broken options ?
-** %no-parser []
-** %token-table []
-** Skeleton strategy. []
-Must we keep %no-parser?
- %token-table?
-
-* src/print_graph.c
-Find the best graph parameters. []
-
-* doc/bison.texinfo
-** Update
-informations about ERROR_VERBOSE. []
-** Add explanations about
-skeleton muscles. []
-%skeleton. []
-
-* testsuite
-** tests/pure-parser.at []
-New tests.
+** %token-table
+** Skeleton strategy
+Must we keep %token-table?
* BTYacc
See if we can integrate backtracking in Bison. Charles-Henri de
-Boysson <de-boy_c@epita.fr> is working on this, and already has some
-results. Vadim Maslow, the maintainer of BTYacc was contacted, and we
-stay in touch with him. Adjusting the Bison grammar parser will be
-needed to support some extra BTYacc features. This is less urgent.
+Boysson <de-boy_c@epita.fr> has been working on this, but never gave
+the results.
+
+Vadim Maslow, the maintainer of BTYacc was once contacted. Adjusting
+the Bison grammar parser will be needed to support some extra BTYacc
+features. This is less urgent.
** Keeping the conflicted actions
First, analyze the differences between byacc and btyacc (I'm referring
** Adjust the skeletons
Import the skeletons for C and C++.
-** Improve the skeletons
-Have them support yysymprint, yydestruct and so forth.
-
* Precedence
makes it impossible to have modular precedence information. We should
move to partial orders (sounds like series/parallel orders to me).
-This will be possible with a Bison parser for the grammar, as it will
-make it much easier to extend the grammar.
-
-** Correlation b/w precedence and associativity
-Also, I fail to understand why we have to assign the same
-associativity to operators with the same precedence. For instance,
-why can't I decide that the precedence of * and / is the same, but the
-latter is nonassoc?
-
-If there is really no profound motivation, we should find a new syntax
-to allow specifying this.
-
** RR conflicts
See if we can use precedence between rules to solve RR conflicts. See
what POSIX says.
a Bison option where every typed default rule is explicitly written out
(same typed ruled can of course be grouped together).
-Note: Robert Anisko handles this. He knows how to do it.
-
-
-* Warnings
-It would be nice to have warning support. See how Autoconf handles
-them, it is fairly well described there. It would be very nice to
-implement this in such a way that other programs could use
-lib/warnings.[ch].
-
-Don't work on this without first announcing you do, as I already have
-thought about it, and know many of the components that can be used to
-implement it.
-
-
* Pre and post actions.
From: Florian Krohm <florian@edamail.fishkill.ibm.com>
Subject: YYACT_EPILOGUE
I was wondering what you think about adding YYACT_PROLOGUE/EPILOGUE
to bison. If you're interested, I'll work on a patch.
-* Move to Graphviz
-Well, VCG seems really dead. Move to Graphviz instead. Also, equip
-the parser with a means to create the (visual) parse tree.
+* Better graphics
+Equip the parser with a means to create the (visual) parse tree.
+
+* Complaint submessage indentation.
+We already have an implementation that works fairly well for named
+reference messages, but it would be nice to use it consistently for all
+submessages from Bison. For example, the "previous definition"
+submessage or the list of correct values for a %define variable might
+look better with indentation.
+
+However, the current implementation makes the assumption that the
+location printed on the first line is not usually much shorter than the
+locations printed on the submessage lines that follow. That assumption
+may not hold true as often for some kinds of submessages especially if
+we ever support multiple grammar files.
+
+Here's a proposal for how a new implementation might look:
+
+ http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bison-patches/2009-09/msg00086.html
-----
-Copyright (C) 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+Copyright (C) 2001-2004, 2006, 2008-2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
-This file is part of GNU Bison.
+This file is part of Bison, the GNU Compiler Compiler.
-GNU Bison is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
-the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
-any later version.
+the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
+(at your option) any later version.
-GNU Bison is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
-along with Bison; see the file COPYING. If not, write to
-the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330,
-Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.
+along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
projects / bison.git / blobdiff