Scribd
Upload
40 views17 pages

2019 - Lecture 08 - Syntax Analysis - 4

This document discusses LR(1) parsing and how LALR parsing tables are constructed from LR(1) parsing tables. It defines LR(1) items which include a lookahead terminal symbol. It describes how the closure and goto functions are used to construct the canonical collection of LR(1) item sets. It then explains that LALR parsing tables are constructed by merging LR(1) item sets that have the same core (first component) to reduce the number of states. This merging can introduce reduce/reduce conflicts but not shift/reduce conflicts. The parsing tables are then created from the LALR item sets in the same way as for LR(1) tables.

Uploaded by

Syeed Abrar Zaoad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
40 views17 pages

2019 - Lecture 08 - Syntax Analysis - 4

This document discusses LR(1) parsing and how LALR parsing tables are constructed from LR(1) parsing tables. It defines LR(1) items which include a lookahead terminal symbol. It describes how the closure and goto functions are used to construct the canonical collection of LR(1) item sets. It then explains that LALR parsing tables are constructed by merging LR(1) item sets that have the same core (first component) to reduce the number of states. This merging can introduce reduce/reduce conflicts but not shift/reduce conflicts. The parsing tables are then created from the LALR item sets in the same way as for LR(1) tables.

Uploaded by

Syeed Abrar Zaoad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 17

SYNTAX ANALYSIS

OR
PARSING
Lecture 08

1
LR(1) ITEM
 To avoid some of invalid reductions, the states need to carry
more information.

 Extra information is put into a state by including a terminal


symbol as a second component in an item.

A LR(1) item is:


.

A → α β,a where a is the look-head of the LR(1)


item
(a is a terminal or end-marker.)
2
LR (1) ITEMS

3
INTUITION BEHIND LR (1) ITEMS

4
INTUITION BEHIND LR (1) ITEMS

5
THE CLOSURE FUNCTION

6
THE CLOSURE FUNCTION

7
LR (1) EXAMPLE

 S -> CC
 C -> cC

 C -> d

8
THE GOTO FUNCTION

9
CONSTRUCTION OF LR(1) PARSING TABLES
1. Construct the canonical collection of sets of LR(1) items for G’.
C←{I0,...,In}

.
2. Create the parsing action table as follows
• If a is a terminal, A→α aβ,b in Ii and goto(Ii,a)=Ij then action[i,a]

.
is shift j.

.
• If A→α ,a is in Ii , then action[i,a] is reduce A→α where A≠S’.
• If S’→S ,$ is in Ii , then action[i,$] is accept.
• If any conflicting actions generated by these rules, the grammar is
not LR(1).

3. Create the parsing goto table


• for all non-terminals A, if goto(Ii,A)=Ij then goto[i,A]=j

4. All entries not defined by (2) and (3) are errors.


10
5. Initial state of the parser contains S’→.S,$
LALR Parsing Tables
• LALR stands for LookAhead LR.

• LALR parsers are often used in practice because


LALR parsing tables are smaller than LR(1) parsing
tables.
• The number of states in SLR and LALR parsing tables
for a grammar G are equal.
• But LALR parsers recognize more grammars than
SLR parsers.
• A state of LALR parser will be again a set of LR(1)
items.
CREATING LALR PARSING TABLES

Canonical LR(1) Parser € LALR Parser


shrink # of states

• This shrink process may introduce a reduce/reduce


conflict in the resulting LALR parser (so the grammar
is NOT LALR)

• But, this shrink process does not produce a


shift/reduce conflict.
The Core of A Set of LR(1) Items

• The core of a set of LR(1) items is the set of its


first component.
Ex: S → L =R,$
R → L ,$
.. S → L =R
R→L
.. Core

• We will find the states (sets of LR(1) items) in a canonical LR(1)


parser with same cores. Then we will merge them as a single
state.
I1:L → .
id ,= Same Core ..
A new state:I12: L → id ,=
L → id ,$
.
I2:L → id ,$ Merge Them

• We will do this for all states of a canonical LR(1) parser to get


the states of the LALR parser.
• In fact, the number of the states of the LALR parser for a
grammar will be equal to the number of states of the SLR
CREATION OF LALR PARSING TABLES

• Create the canonical LR(1) collection of the sets of LR(1) items


for the given grammar.
• Find each core; find all sets having that same core; replace
those sets having same cores with a single set which is their
union.
C={I0,...,In} € C’={J1,...,Jm} where m ≤ n
• Create the parsing tables (action and goto tables) same as the
construction of the parsing tables of LR(1) parser.
– Note that: If J=I1 ∪ ... ∪ Iksince I1,...,Ik have same cores
€ cores of goto(I1,X),...,goto(I2,X) must be same.
– So, goto(J,X)=K where K is the union of all sets of items
having same cores as goto(I1,X).

• If no conflict is introduced, the grammar is LALR(1) grammar.


(We may only introduce reduce/reduce conflicts; we cannot
introduce a shift/reduce conflict)
SHIFT/REDUCE CONFLICT

• We say that we cannot introduce a shift/reduce conflict during


the shrink process for the creation of the states of a LALR
parser.
• Assume that we can introduce a shift/reduce conflict. In this
case, a state of LALR parser must have:
.
A → α ,a and .
B → β aγ,b
• This means that a state of the canonical LR(1) parser must
have:
.
A → α ,a and .
B → β aγ,c
But, this state has also a shift/reduce conflict. i.e. The original
canonical LR(1) parser has a conflict.
(Reason for this, the shift operation does not depend on
lookaheads)
Reduce/Reduce Conflict

• But, we may introduce a reduce/reduce conflict during the


shrink process for the creation of the states of a LALR parser.

.
I1 : A → α ,a .
I2: A → α ,b
.
B → α ,b .
B → α ,c
⇓
.
I12: A → α ,a/b € reduce/reduce conflict
.
B → α ,b/c
Any Questions ?

17

You might also like