Chapter 3

Describing Syntax
and Semantics
Chapter 3 Topics

Introduction
The General Problem of Describing Syntax
Formal Methods of Describing Syntax
Attribute Grammars
Describing the Meanings of Programs:
Dynamic Semantics

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-2

Introduction

Syntax: the form or structure of the

expressions, statements, and program
units
Semantics: the meaning of the expressions,
statements, and program units
Syntax and semantics provide a languages
definition
Users of a language definition
Other language designers
Implementers
Programmers (the users of the language)

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-3

The General Problem of Describing
Syntax: Terminology

A sentence is a string of characters over

some alphabet

A language is a set of sentences

A lexeme is the lowest level syntactic unit

of a language (e.g., *, sum, begin)

A token is a category of lexemes (e.g.,

identifier)

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-4

Formal Definition of Languages

Recognizers
A recognition device reads input strings over the alphabet
of the language and decides whether the input strings
belong to the language
Example: syntax analysis part of a compiler
- Detailed discussion of syntax analysis appears in
Chapter 4

Generators
A device that generates sentences of a language
One can determine if the syntax of a particular sentence is
syntactically correct by comparing it to the structure of
the generator

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-5

BNF and Context-Free Grammars

Context-Free Grammars
Developed by Noam Chomsky in the mid-1950s
Language generators, meant to describe the
syntax of natural languages
Define a class of languages called context-free
languages

Backus-Naur Form (1959)

Invented by John Backus to describe the syntax
of Algol 58
BNF is equivalent to context-free grammars
Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-6
BNF Fundamentals

In BNF, abstractions are used to represent classes

of syntactic structures--they act like syntactic
variables (also called nonterminal symbols, or just
terminals)

Terminals are lexemes or tokens

A rule has a left-hand side (LHS), which is a

nonterminal, and a right-hand side (RHS), which is
a string of terminals and/or nonterminals

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-7

BNF Fundamentals (continued)

Nonterminals are often enclosed in angle brackets

Examples of BNF rules:

<ident_list> identifier | identifier, <ident_list>
<if_stmt> if <logic_expr> then <stmt>

Grammar: a finite non-empty set of rules

A start symbol is a special element of the

nonterminals of a grammar

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-8

BNF Rules

An abstraction (or nonterminal symbol)

can have more than one RHS
<stmt> <single_stmt>
| begin <stmt_list> end

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-9

Describing Lists

Syntactic lists are described using

recursion
<ident_list> ident
| ident, <ident_list>

A derivation is a repeated application of

rules, starting with the start symbol and
ending with a sentence (all terminal
symbols)

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-10

An Example Grammar

<program> <stmts>
<stmts> <stmt> | <stmt> ; <stmts>
<stmt> <var> = <expr>
<var> a | b | c | d
<expr> <term> + <term> | <term> - <term>
<term> <var> | const

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-11

An Example Derivation

<program> => <stmts> => <stmt>

=> <var> = <expr>
=> a = <expr>
=> a = <term> + <term>
=> a = <var> + <term>
=> a = b + <term>
=> a = b + const

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-12

Derivations

Every string of symbols in a derivation is a

sentential form
A sentence is a sentential form that has
only terminal symbols
A leftmost derivation is one in which the
leftmost nonterminal in each sentential
form is the one that is expanded
A derivation may be neither leftmost nor
rightmost

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-13

Parse Tree

A hierarchical representation of a derivation

<program>

<stmts>

<stmt>

<var> = <expr>

a <term> + <term>

<var> const

b
Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-14
Ambiguity in Grammars

A grammar is ambiguous if and only if it

generates a sentential form that has two
or more distinct parse trees

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-15

An Ambiguous Expression Grammar

<expr> <expr> <op> <expr> | const

<op> / | -

<expr> <expr>

<expr> <op> <expr> <expr> <op> <expr>

<expr> <op> <expr> <expr> <op> <expr>

const - const / const const - const / const

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-16

An Unambiguous Expression Grammar

If we use the parse tree to indicate

precedence levels of the operators, we
cannot have ambiguity
<expr> <expr> - <term> | <term>
<term> <term> / const| const

<expr>

<expr> - <term>

<term> <term> / const

const const
Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-17
Associativity of Operators

Operator associativity can also be indicated by a

grammar

<expr> -> <expr> + <expr> | const (ambiguous)

<expr> -> <expr> + const | const (unambiguous)

<expr>
<expr>

<expr> + const

<expr> + const

const
Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-18
Extended BNF

Optional parts are placed in brackets [ ]

<proc_call> -> ident [(<expr_list>)]
Alternative parts of RHSs are placed
inside parentheses and separated via
vertical bars
<term> <term> (+|-) const
Repetitions (0 or more) are placed inside
braces { }
<ident> letter {letter|digit}

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-19

BNF and EBNF

BNF
<expr> <expr> + <term>
| <expr> - <term>
| <term>
<term> <term> * <factor>
| <term> / <factor>
| <factor>
EBNF
<expr> <term> {(+ | -) <term>}
<term> <factor> {(* | /) <factor>}

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-20

Recent Variations in EBNF

Alternative RHSs are put on separate lines

Use of a colon instead of =>
Use of opt for optional parts
Use of oneof for choices

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-21

Static Semantics

Nothing to do with meaning

Context-free grammars (CFGs) cannot
describe all of the syntax of programming
languages
Categories of constructs that are trouble:
- Context-free, but cumbersome (e.g.,
types of operands in expressions)
- Non-context-free (e.g., variables must
be declared before they are used)

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-22

Attribute Grammars

Attribute grammars (AGs) have additions

to CFGs to carry some semantic info on
parse tree nodes

Primary value of AGs:

Static semantics specification
Compiler design (static semantics checking)

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-23

Attribute Grammars : Definition

Def: An attribute grammar is a context-free

grammar G = (S, N, T, P) with the following
additions:
For each grammar symbol x there is a set A(x)
of attribute values
Each rule has a set of functions that define
certain attributes of the nonterminals in the rule
Each rule has a (possibly empty) set of
predicates to check for attribute consistency

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-24

Attribute Grammars: Definition

Let X0 X1 ... Xn be a rule

Functions of the form S(X0) = f(A(X1), ... ,
A(Xn)) define synthesized attributes
Functions of the form I(Xj) = f(A(X0), ... ,
A(Xn)), for i <= j <= n, define inherited
attributes
Initially, there are intrinsic attributes on the
leaves

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-25

Attribute Grammars: An Example

Syntax
<assign> -> <var> = <expr>
<expr> -> <var> + <var> | <var>
<var> A | B | C
actual_type: synthesized for <var>
and <expr>
expected_type: inherited for <expr>

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-26

Attribute Grammar (continued)

Syntax rule: <expr> <var>[1] + <var>[2]

Semantic rules:
<expr>.actual_type <var>[1].actual_type
Predicate:
<var>[1].actual_type == <var>[2].actual_type
<expr>.expected_type == <expr>.actual_type

Syntax rule: <var> id

Semantic rule:
<var>.actual_type lookup (<var>.string)

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-27

Attribute Grammars (continued)

How are attribute values computed?

If all attributes were inherited, the tree could be
decorated in top-down order.
If all attributes were synthesized, the tree could
be decorated in bottom-up order.
In many cases, both kinds of attributes are
used, and it is some combination of top-down
and bottom-up that must be used.

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-28

Attribute Grammars (continued)

<expr>.expected_type inherited from parent

<var>[1].actual_type lookup (A)

<var>[2].actual_type lookup (B)
<var>[1].actual_type =? <var>[2].actual_type

<expr>.actual_type <var>[1].actual_type
<expr>.actual_type =? <expr>.expected_type

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-29

Semantics

There is no single widely acceptable

notation or formalism for describing
semantics
Several needs for a methodology and
notation for semantics:
Programmers need to know what statements mean
Compiler writers must know exactly what language
constructs do
Correctness proofs would be possible
Compiler generators would be possible
Designers could detect ambiguities and inconsistencies

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-30

Operational Semantics

Operational Semantics
Describe the meaning of a program by
executing its statements on a machine, either
simulated or actual. The change in the state of
the machine (memory, registers, etc.) defines
the meaning of the statement
To use operational semantics for a high-
level language, a virtual machine is needed

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-31

Operational Semantics

A hardware pure interpreter would be too

expensive
A software pure interpreter also has
problems
The detailed characteristics of the particular
computer would make actions difficult to
understand
Such a semantic definition would be machine-
dependent

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-32

Operational Semantics (continued)

A better alternative: A complete computer

simulation
The process:
Build a translator (translates source code to the
machine code of an idealized computer)
Build a simulator for the idealized computer
Evaluation of operational semantics:
Good if used informally (language manuals, etc.)
Extremely complex if used formally (e.g., VDL),
it was used for describing semantics of PL/I.

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-33

Operational Semantics (continued)
Uses of operational semantics:
- Language manuals and textbooks
- Teaching programming languages

Two different levels of uses of operational

semantics:
- Natural operational semantics
- Structural operational semantics

Evaluation
- Good if used informally (language
manuals, etc.)
- Extremely complex if used formally (e.g.,VDL)
Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-34
Denotational Semantics

Based on recursive function theory

The most abstract semantics description
method
Originally developed by Scott and Strachey
(1970)

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-35

Denotational Semantics - continued

The process of building a denotational

specification for a language:
- Define a mathematical object for each language
entity
Define a function that maps instances of the
language entities onto instances of the
corresponding mathematical objects
The meaning of language constructs are
defined by only the values of the program's
variables

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-36

Denotational Semantics: program state

The state of a program is the values of all

its current variables
s = {<i1, v1>, <i2, v2>, , <in, vn>}

Let VARMAP be a function that, when given

a variable name and a state, returns the
current value of the variable
VARMAP(ij, s) = vj

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-37

Decimal Numbers

<dec_num> '0' | '1' | '2' | '3' | '4' | '5' |

'6' | '7' | '8' | '9' |
<dec_num> ('0' | '1' | '2' | '3' |
'4' | '5' | '6' | '7' |
'8' | '9')

Mdec('0') = 0, Mdec ('1') = 1, , Mdec ('9') = 9

Mdec (<dec_num> '0') = 10 * Mdec (<dec_num>)
Mdec (<dec_num> '1) = 10 * Mdec (<dec_num>) + 1

Mdec (<dec_num> '9') = 10 * Mdec (<dec_num>) + 9

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-38

Expressions

Map expressions onto Z {error}

We assume expressions are decimal
numbers, variables, or binary expressions
having one arithmetic operator and two
operands, each of which can be an
expression

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-39

Expressions

Me(<expr>, s) =
case <expr> of
<dec_num> => Mdec(<dec_num>, s)
<var> =>
if VARMAP(<var>, s) == undef
then error
else VARMAP(<var>, s)
<binary_expr> =>
if (Me(<binary_expr>.<left_expr>, s) == undef
OR Me(<binary_expr>.<right_expr>, s) =
undef)
then error
else
if (<binary_expr>.<operator> == '+' then
Me(<binary_expr>.<left_expr>, s) +
Me(<binary_expr>.<right_expr>, s)
else Me(<binary_expr>.<left_expr>, s) *
Me(<binary_expr>.<right_expr>, s)
...

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-40

Assignment Statements

Maps state sets to state sets U {error}

Ma(x := E, s) =
if Me(E, s) == error
then error
else s =
{<i1,v1>,<i2,v2>,...,<in,vn>},
where for j = 1, 2, ..., n,
if ij == x
then vj = Me(E, s)
else vj = VARMAP(ij, s)

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-41

Logical Pretest Loops

Maps state sets to state sets U {error}

Ml(while B do L, s) =
if Mb(B, s) == undef
then error
else if Mb(B, s) == false
then s
else if Msl(L, s) == error
then error
else Ml(while B do L, Msl(L, s))

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-42

Loop Meaning

The meaning of the loop is the value of the

program variables after the statements in the loop
have been executed the prescribed number of
times, assuming there have been no errors
In essence, the loop has been converted from
iteration to recursion, where the recursive control
is mathematically defined by other recursive state
mapping functions

- Recursion, when compared to iteration, is easier

to describe with mathematical rigor

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-43

Evaluation of Denotational Semantics

Can be used to prove the correctness of

programs
Provides a rigorous way to think about
programs
Can be an aid to language design
Has been used in compiler generation
systems
Because of its complexity, it are of little use
to language users

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-44

Axiomatic Semantics

Based on formal logic (predicate calculus)

Original purpose: formal program
verification
Axioms or inference rules are defined for
each statement type in the language (to
allow transformations of logic expressions
into more formal logic expressions)
The logic expressions are called assertions

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-45

Axiomatic Semantics (continued)
An assertion before a statement (a
precondition) states the relationships and
constraints among variables that are true at
that point in execution
An assertion following a statement is a
postcondition
A weakest precondition is the least
restrictive precondition that will guarantee
the postcondition

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-46

Axiomatic Semantics Form

Pre-, post form: {P} statement {Q}

An example
a = b + 1 {a > 1}
One possible precondition: {b > 10}
Weakest precondition: {b > 0}

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-47

 Program Proof Process

The postcondition for the entire program is

the desired result
Work back through the program to the first
statement. If the precondition on the first
statement is the same as the program
specification, the program is correct.

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-48

Axiomatic Semantics: Assignment

An axiom for assignment statements

(x = E): {Qx->E} x = E {Q}

The Rule of Consequence:

{P} S {Q}, P' P, Q Q'
{P'} S {Q'}

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-49

Axiomatic Semantics: Sequences

An inference rule for sequences of the form

S1; S2

{P1} S1 {P2}
{P2} S2 {P3}

{P1}S1{P2}, {P2}S2 {P3}

{P1}S1; S2 {P3}

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-50

Axiomatic Semantics: Selection

An inference rules for selection

- if B then S1 else S2

{B and P} S1 {Q}, {(not B) and P} S2 {Q}

{P} if B then S1 else S2 {Q}

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-51

Axiomatic Semantics: Loops
An inference rule for logical pretest loops

{P} while B do S end {Q}

(I and B) S {I}
{I} while B do S {I and (not B)}

where I is the loop invariant (the inductive

hypothesis)

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-52

Axiomatic Semantics: Axioms
Characteristics of the loop invariant: I must
meet the following conditions:
P => I -- the loop invariant must be true initially
{I} B {I} -- evaluation of the Boolean must not change the validity of I
{I and B} S {I} -- I is not changed by executing the body of the loop
(I and (not B)) => Q -- if I is true and B is false, Q is implied

The loop terminates -- can be difficult to prove

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-53

Loop Invariant

The loop invariant I is a weakened version

of the loop postcondition, and it is also a
precondition.
I must be weak enough to be satisfied prior
to the beginning of the loop, but when
combined with the loop exit condition, it
must be strong enough to force the truth of
the postcondition

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-54

Evaluation of Axiomatic Semantics

Developing axioms or inference rules for all

of the statements in a language is difficult
It is a good tool for correctness proofs, and
an excellent framework for reasoning about
programs, but it is not as useful for
language users and compiler writers
Its usefulness in describing the meaning of
a programming language is limited for
language users or compiler writers

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-55

Denotation Semantics vs Operational
Semantics
In operational semantics, the state changes
are defined by coded algorithms
In denotational semantics, the state
changes are defined by rigorous
mathematical functions

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-56

Summary

BNF and context-free grammars are

equivalent meta-languages
Well-suited for describing the syntax of
programming languages
An attribute grammar is a descriptive
formalism that can describe both the
syntax and the semantics of a language
Three primary methods of semantics
description
Operation, axiomatic, denotational

Copyright 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-57