X-Git-Url: https://git.saurik.com/bison.git/blobdiff_plain/c19988b766d542b4d4c83b1b27579ee83cb5f930..01d25b42dc96196bc20125f76029b8dc8ce7d452:/TODO diff --git a/TODO b/TODO index ef4a61fc..588bf468 100644 --- a/TODO +++ b/TODO @@ -1,66 +1,187 @@ -*- outline -*- -* Header guards +* 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. -From Franc,ois: should we keep the directory part in the CPP guard? +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? -* Yacc.c: CPP Macros +** Variable names. +What should we name `variant' and `lex_symbol'? -Do some people use YYPURE, YYLSP_NEEDED like we do in the test suite? -They should not: it is not documented. But if they need to, let's -find something clean (not like YYLSP_NEEDED...). +** 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 -* readpipe +** Get rid of fake #lines [Bison: ...] +Possibly as simple as checking whether the column number is nonnegative. -It should be replaced to avoid tmp files and to improve portability. -Also, as it is it does not call error () when execve fails, and -therefore, running M4='m4 --version' bison will silently fail instead -of: +I have seen messages like the following from GCC. - bison: cannot run m4 --version: No such file or directory +:0: fatal error: opening dependency file .deps/libltdl/argz.Tpo: No such file or directory -BTW: I would really like to be able to pass arguments to m4... +** 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 -* URGENT: Documenting C++ output -Write a first documentation for C++ output. + %printer { debug_stream() << $$; } ; +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). -* Documentation -Before releasing, make sure the documentation refers to the current -`output' format. +** 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, + // ... + }; -* Error messages -Some are really funky. For instance +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: - type clash (`%s' `%s') on default action + const unsigned short int + parser::yytoken_number_[] = + { + 0, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, -is really weird. Revisit them all. +while here + enum yytokentype { + TOK_EOF = 0, + TOK_EQ = 258, -* read_pipe.c -This is not portable to DOS for instance. Implement a more portable -scheme. Sources of inspiration include GNU diff, and Free Recode. +so both 256 and 257 are "mysterious". + const char* + const parser::yytname_[] = + { + "\"end of command\"", "error", "$undefined", "\"=\"", "\"break\"", -* value_components_used -Was defined but not used: where was it coming from? It can't be to -check if %union is used, since the user is free to $n on her -union, doesn't she? +** YYFAIL +It is seems to be *really* obsolete now, shall we remove it? -* GLR & C++ -Currently, the GLR parser cannot compile with a C++ compiler. +** 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? + + +* Yacc.c: CPP Macros + +Do some people use YYPURE, YYLSP_NEEDED like we do in the test suite? +They should not: it is not documented. But if they need to, let's +find something clean (not like YYLSP_NEEDED...). + + +* Installation + +* Documentation +Before releasing, make sure the documentation ("Understanding your +parser") refers to the current `output' format. * 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 lookahead, 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. @@ -80,45 +201,56 @@ Provide better assistance for understanding the conflicts by providing 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 + for an approach. + * Extensions -** yyerror, yysymprint interface -It should be improved, in particular when using Bison features such as -locations, and YYPARSE_PARAMS. For the time being, it is recommended -to #define yyerror and yyprint to steal internal variables... +** $-1 +We should find a means to provide an access to values deep in the +stack. For instance, instead of + + baz: qux { $$ = $-1 + $0 + $1; } + +we should be able to have: -** Several %unions -I think this is a pleasant (but useless currently) feature, but in the -future, I want a means to %include other bits of grammars, and _then_ -it will be important for the various bits to define their needs in -%union. + foo($foo) bar($bar) baz($bar): qux($qux) { $baz = $foo + $bar + $qux; } -When implementing multiple-%union support, bare the following in mind: +Or something like this. -- when --yacc, this must be flagged as an error. Don't make it fatal - though. +** %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 +must be in the scanner: we must not parse what is in a switched off +part of %if. Akim Demaille thinks it should be in the parser, so as +to avoid falling into another CPP mistake. -- The #line must now appear *inside* the definition of yystype. - Something like +** XML Output +There are couple of available extensions of Bison targeting some XML +output. Some day we should consider including them. One issue is +that they seem to be quite orthogonal to the parsing technique, and +seem to depend mostly on the possibility to have some code triggered +for each reduction. As a matter of fact, such hooks could also be +used to generate the yydebug traces. Some generic scheme probably +exists in there. - { - #line 12 "foo.y" - int ival; - #line 23 "foo.y" - char *sval; - } +XML output for GNU Bison and gcc + http://www.cs.may.ie/~jpower/Research/bisonXML/ + +XML output for GNU Bison + http://yaxx.sourceforge.net/ * Unit rules Maybe we could expand unit rules, i.e., transform - exp: arith | bool; - arith: exp '+' exp; - bool: exp '&' exp; + exp: arith | bool; + arith: exp '+' exp; + bool: exp '&' exp; into - exp: exp '+' exp | exp '&' exp; + exp: exp '+' exp | exp '&' exp; when there are no actions. This can significantly speed up some grammars. I can't find the papers. In particular the book `LR @@ -134,84 +266,45 @@ this issue. Does anybody have it? 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. - - -- Bison Java - which is based on Bison. - - -Sébastien 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: - Currently Bison assumes 8-bit bytes (i.e. that UCHAR_MAX is - 255). It also assumes that the 8-bit character encoding is - the same for the invocation of 'bison' as it is for the - invocation of 'cc', but this is not necessarily true when - people run bison on an ASCII host and then use cc on an EBCDIC - host. I don't think these topics are worth our time - addressing (unless we find a gung-ho volunteer for EBCDIC or - PDP-10 ports :-) but they should probably be documented - somewhere. - + Currently Bison assumes 8-bit bytes (i.e. that UCHAR_MAX is + 255). It also assumes that the 8-bit character encoding is + the same for the invocation of 'bison' as it is for the + invocation of 'cc', but this is not necessarily true when + people run bison on an ASCII host and then use cc on an EBCDIC + host. I don't think these topics are worth our time + addressing (unless we find a gung-ho volunteer for EBCDIC or + 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-lines [ok] -** %no-parser [] -** %pure-parser [] -** %token-table [] -** Options which could use parse_dquoted_param (). -Maybe transferred in lex.c. -*** %skeleton [ok] -*** %output [] -*** %file-prefix [] -*** %name-prefix [] - -** Skeleton strategy. [] -Must we keep %no-parser? - %token-table? -*** New skeletons. [] - -* 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. - -* input synclines -Some users create their foo.y files, and equip them with #line. Bison -should recognize these, and preserve them. +** %token-table +** Skeleton strategy +Must we keep %token-table? * BTYacc -See if we can integrate backtracking in Bison. Contact the BTYacc -maintainers. +See if we can integrate backtracking in Bison. Charles-Henri de +Boysson 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 @@ -226,9 +319,6 @@ very feasible to use the very same conflict tables. ** Adjust the skeletons Import the skeletons for C and C++. -** Improve the skeletons -Have them support yysymprint, yydestruct and so forth. - * Precedence @@ -237,18 +327,6 @@ It is unfortunate that there is a total order for precedence. It 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. @@ -277,20 +355,6 @@ $$ = $1. I therefore think that one should implement 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 Subject: YYACT_EPILOGUE @@ -319,27 +383,41 @@ at the proper place to bison.simple. Ditto for YYACT_PROLOGUE. 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 Free Software Foundation, Inc. +Copyright (C) 2001-2004, 2006, 2008-2012 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 .