Syntax-Directed Translation

• Grammar symbols are associated with attributes to associate

information with the programming language constructs that they
represent.
• Values of these attributes are evaluated by the semantic rules
associated with the production rules.
• Evaluation of these semantic rules:
– may generate intermediate codes
– may put information into the symbol table
– may perform type checking
– may issue error messages
– may perform some other activities
– in fact, they may perform almost any activities.
• An attribute may hold almost any thing.
– a string, a number, a memory location, a complex record.

CS416 Compiler Design 1

Syntax-Directed Definitions and Translation Schemes
• When we associate semantic rules with productions, we use two
notations:
– Syntax-Directed Definitions
– Translation Schemes
• Syntax-Directed Definitions:
– give high-level specifications for translations
– hide many implementation details such as order of evaluation of semantic actions.
– We associate a production rule with a set of semantic actions, and we do not say when they
will be evaluated.
• Translation Schemes:
– indicate the order of evaluation of semantic actions associated with a production rule.
– In other words, translation schemes give a little bit information about implementation
details.

CS416 Compiler Design 2

 Syntax-Directed Definitions
• A syntax-directed definition is a generalization of a context-free
grammar in which:
– Each grammar symbol is associated with a set of attributes.
– This set of attributes for a grammar symbol is partitioned into two subsets called
synthesized and inherited attributes of that grammar symbol.
– Each production rule is associated with a set of semantic rules.
• Semantic rules set up dependencies between attributes which can be
represented by a dependency graph.
• This dependency graph determines the evaluation order of these
semantic rules.
• Evaluation of a semantic rule defines the value of an attribute. But a
semantic rule may also have some side effects such as printing a value.

CS416 Compiler Design 3

 Annotated Parse Tree
• A parse tree showing the values of attributes at each node is called
an annotated parse tree.
• The process of computing the attributes values at the nodes is called
annotating (or decorating) of the parse tree.
• Of course, the order of these computations depends on the
dependency graph induced by the semantic rules.

CS416 Compiler Design 4

 Syntax-Directed Definition
• In a syntax-directed definition, each production A→α is associated
with a set of semantic rules of the form:
b=f(c1,c2,…,cn)where f is a function,
and b can be one of the followings:
 b is a synthesized attribute of A and c1,c2,…,cn are attributes of
the grammar symbols in the production ( A→α ).
OR
 b is an inherited attribute one of the grammar symbols in α (on
the
right side of the production), and c1,c2,…,cn are attributes of the
grammar symbols in the production ( A→α ).

CS416 Compiler Design 5

 Attribute Grammar
• So, a semantic rule b=f(c1,c2,…,cn) indicates that the attribute b depends
on attributes c1,c2,…,cn.
• In a syntax-directed definition, a semantic rule may just evaluate
a value of an attribute or it may have some side effects such as
printing values.

• An attribute grammar is a syntax-directed definition in which the

functions in the semantic rules cannot have side effects (they can
only evaluate values of attributes).

CS416 Compiler Design 6

 Syntax-Directed Definition -- Example
Production Semantic Rules
L → E return print(E.val)
E → E1 + T E.val = E1.val + T.val
E→T E.val = T.val
T → T1 * F T.val = T1.val * F.val
T→F T.val = F.val
F→(E) F.val = E.val
F → digit F.val = digit.lexval

• Symbols E, T, and F are associated with a synthesized attribute val.

• The token digit has a synthesized attribute lexval (it is assumed that it is
evaluated by the lexical analyzer).
CS416 Compiler Design 7
 Annotated Parse Tree -- Example
Input: 5+3*4 L

E.val=17 return

E.val=5 + T.val=12

T.val=5 T.val=3 * F.val=4

F.val=5 F.val=3 digit.lexval=4

digit.lexval=5 digit.lexval=3

CS416 Compiler Design 8

 Dependency Graph
Input: 5+3*4 L

E.val=17

E.val=5 T.val=12

T.val=5 T.val=3 F.val=4

F.val=5 F.val=3 digit.lexval=4

digit.lexval=5 digit.lexval=3

CS416 Compiler Design 9

 Syntax-Directed Definition – Example2
Production Semantic Rules
E → E1 + T E.loc=newtemp(), E.code = E1.code || T.code || add E1.loc,T.loc,E.loc
E→T E.loc = T.loc, E.code=T.code
T → T1 * F T.loc=newtemp(), T.code = T1.code || F.code || mult T1.loc,F.loc,T.loc
T→F T.loc = F.loc, T.code=F.code
F → ( E ) F.loc = E.loc, F.code=E.code
F → id F.loc = id.name, F.code=“”

• Symbols E, T, and F are associated with synthesized attributes loc and

code.
• The token id has a synthesized attribute name (it is assumed that it is
evaluated by the lexical analyzer).
• It is assumed that || is the string concatenation operator.

CS416 Compiler Design 10

 Syntax-Directed Definition – Inherited Attributes

Production Semantic Rules

D→TL L.in = T.type
T → int T.type = integer
T → real T.type = real
L → L1 id L1.in = L.in, addtype(id.entry,L.in)
L → id addtype(id.entry,L.in)

• Symbol T is associated with a synthesized attribute type.

• Symbol L is associated with an inherited attribute in.

CS416 Compiler Design 11

 A Dependency Graph – Inherited Attributes
Input: real p q

D L.in=real

T L T.type=real L1.in=real addtype(q,real)

real L id addtype(p,real) id.entry=q

id id.entry=p

parse tree dependency graph

CS416 Compiler Design 12
 S-Attributed Definitions
• Syntax-directed definitions are used to specify syntax-directed translations.
• To create a translator for an arbitrary syntax-directed definition can be difficult.
• We would like to evaluate the semantic rules during parsing (i.e. in a single pass, we
will parse and we will also evaluate semantic rules during the parsing).
• We will look at two sub-classes of the syntax-directed definitions:
– S-Attributed Definitions: only synthesized attributes used in the syntax-directed
definitions.
– L-Attributed Definitions: in addition to synthesized attributes, we may also use inherited
attributes in a restricted fashion.
• To implement S-Attributed Definitions and L-Attributed Definitions are easy (we can
evaluate semantic rules in a single pass during the parsing).
• Implementations of S-attributed Definitions are a little bit easier than implementations
of L-Attributed Definitions

CS416 Compiler Design 13

 Bottom-Up Evaluation of S-Attributed Definitions
• We put the values of the synthesized attributes of the grammar symbols into a parallel
stack.
– When an entry of the parser stack holds a grammar symbol X (terminal or non-terminal),
the corresponding entry in the parallel stack will hold the synthesized attribute(s) of the
symbol X.
• We evaluate the values of the attributes during reductions.

A  XYZ A.a=f(X.x,Y.y,Z.z) where all attributes are synthesized.

stack parallel-stack
top  Z Z.z
Y Y.y
X X.x  top 
A A.a
. . . .
CS416 Compiler Design 14
 Bottom-Up Eval. of S-Attributed Definitions (cont.)
Production Semantic Rules
L → E return print(val[top-1])
E → E1 + T val[ntop] = val[top-2] + val[top]
E→T
T → T1 * F val[ntop] = val[top-2] * val[top]
T→F
F→(E) val[ntop] = val[top-1]
F → digit
• At each shift of digit, we also push digit.lexval into val-stack.
• At all other shifts, we do not put anything into val-stack because
other terminals do not have attributes (but we increment the
stack pointer for val-stack).
CS416 Compiler Design 15
 Canonical LR(0) Collection for The Grammar
.. L . . .
I0: L’→
.
L I1: L’→L I7: L →Er I11: E →E+T *

.. .. .
r 9
L→ Er T T →T *F
E→
E→
..
E+T E
T
I2: L →E r
E →E +T
+ I8: E →E+ T
T → T*F .. (
F 4

.. ..
5
T→ T*F T→ F d

..
T→ F T I3: E →T F → (E) 6
F→ (E) T →T *F F→ d
F→ d
. *

. .
F
I4: T →F
(
I5: F →
E→ .. .
( E)
E+T
I9: T →T* F
F → (E)
F→ d
.. F

(
I12: T →T*F
5

..
E→ T E d

..
6

.
T→ T*F
T→
F→
F→
.. F
(E)
d
T
F
3
I10: F →(E )
E →E +T
)
+
I13: F →(E)

.
4 8
(
d 5
I6: F →d d
6

CS416 Compiler Design 16

 Bottom-Up Evaluation -- Example
• At each shift of digit, we also push digit.lexval into val-stack.
stack val-stack input action semantic rule
0 5+3*4r s6 d.lexval(5) into val-stack
0d6 5 +3*4r F→d F.val=d.lexval – do nothing
0F4 5 +3*4r T→F T.val=F.val – do nothing
0T35 +3*4r E→T E.val=T.val – do nothing
0E25 +3*4r s8 push empty slot into val-stack
0E2+8 5- 3*4r s6 d.lexval(3) into val-stack
0E2+8d6 5-3 *4r F→d F.val=d.lexval – do nothing
0E2+8F4 5-3 *4r T→F T.val=F.val – do nothing
0E2+8T11 5-3 *4r s9 push empty slot into val-stack
0E2+8T11*9 5-3- 4r s6 d.lexval(4) into val-stack
0E2+8T11*9d6 5-3-4 r F→d F.val=d.lexval – do nothing
0E2+8T11*9F12 5-3-4 r T→T*F T.val=T1.val*F.val
0E2+8T11 5-12 r E→E+T E.val=E1.val*T.val
0E217 r s7 push empty slot into val-stack
0E2r7 17- $ L→Er print(17), pop empty slot from val-stack
0L117 $ acc

CS416 Compiler Design 17

 Top-Down Evaluation (of S-Attributed Definitions)
Productions Semantic Rules
A→B print(B.n0), print(B.n1)
B → 0 B1 B.n0=B1.n0+1, B.n1=B1.n1
B → 1 B1 B.n0=B1.n0, B.n1=B1.n1+1
B→ B.n0=0, B.n1=0

where B has two synthesized attributes (n0 and n1).

CS416 Compiler Design 18

 Top-Down Evaluation (of S-Attributed Definitions)
• Remember that: In a recursive predicate parser, each non-terminal
corresponds to a procedure.

procedure A() {
call B(); A→B
}
procedure B() {
if (currtoken=0) { consume 0; call B(); } B→0B
else if (currtoken=1) { consume 1; call B(); } B→1B
else if (currtoken=$) {} // $ is end-marker B→
else error(“unexpected token”);
}

CS416 Compiler Design 19

 Top-Down Evaluation (of S-Attributed Definitions)
procedure A() {
int n0,n1; Synthesized attributes of non-terminal B
call B(&n0,&n1); are the output parameters of procedure B.
print(n0); print(n1);
} All the semantic rules can be evaluated
procedure B(int *n0, int *n1) { at the end of parsing of production rules
if (currtoken=0)
{int a,b; consume 0; call B(&a,&b); *n0=a+1; *n1=b;}
else if (currtoken=1)
{ int a,b; consume 1; call B(&a,&b); *n0=a; *n1=b+1; }
else if (currtoken=$) {*n0=0; *n1=0; } // $ is end-marker
else error(“unexpected token”);
}

CS416 Compiler Design 20

 L-Attributed Definitions
• S-Attributed Definitions can be efficiently implemented.
• We are looking for a larger (larger than S-Attributed Definitions) subset
of syntax-directed definitions which can be efficiently evaluated.
 L-Attributed Definitions

• L-Attributed Definitions can always be evaluated by the depth first visit

of the parse tree.
• This means that they can also be evaluated during the parsing.

CS416 Compiler Design 21

 L-Attributed Definitions
• A syntax-directed definition is L-attributed if each inherited attribute
of Xj, where 1jn, on the right side of A → X1X2...Xn depends only
on:
1. The attributes of the symbols X1,...,Xj-1 to the left of Xj in the
production and
2. the inherited attribute of A

• Every S-attributed definition is L-attributed, the restrictions only apply

to the inherited attributes (not to synthesized attributes).

CS416 Compiler Design 22

 A Definition which is NOT L-Attributed
Productions Semantic Rules
A→LM L.in=l(A.i), M.in=m(L.s), A.s=f(M.s)
A→QR R.in=r(A.in), Q.in=q(R.s), A.s=f(Q.s)

• This syntax-directed definition is not L-attributed because the semantic

rule Q.in=q(R.s) violates the restrictions of L-attributed definitions.
• When Q.in must be evaluated before we enter to Q because it is an
inherited attribute.
• But the value of Q.in depends on R.s which will be available after we
return from R. So, we are not be able to evaluate the value of Q.in
before we enter to Q.

CS416 Compiler Design 23

 Translation Schemes
• In a syntax-directed definition, we do not say anything about the
evaluation times of the semantic rules (when the semantic rules
associated with a production should be evaluated?).

• A translation scheme is a context-free grammar in which:

– attributes are associated with the grammar symbols and
– semantic actions enclosed between braces {} are inserted within
the right sides of productions.

• Ex: A → { ... } X { ... } Y { ... }

Semantic Actions
CS416 Compiler Design 24
 Translation Schemes
• When designing a translation scheme, some restrictions should be
observed to ensure that an attribute value is available when a semantic
action refers to that attribute.
• These restrictions (motivated by L-attributed definitions) ensure that
a semantic action does not refer to an attribute that has not yet
computed.
• In translation schemes, we use semantic action terminology instead of
semantic rule terminology used in syntax-directed definitions.
• The position of the semantic action on the right side indicates when that
semantic action will be evaluated.

CS416 Compiler Design 25

 Translation Schemes for S-attributed Definitions
• If our syntax-directed definition is S-attributed, the construction of
the corresponding translation scheme will be simple.
• Each associated semantic rule in a S-attributed syntax-directed
definition will be inserted as a semantic action into the end of the
right side of the associated production.
Production Semantic Rule
E → E1 + T E.val = E1.val + T.val  a production of
a syntax directed definition


E → E1 + T { E.val = E1.val + T.val }  the production of the corresponding
translation scheme

CS416 Compiler Design 26

 A Translation Scheme Example
• A simple translation scheme that converts infix expressions to the
corresponding postfix expressions.

E→TR
R → + T { print(“+”) } R1
R→
T → id { print(id.name) }

a+b+c  ab+c+

infix expression postfix expression

CS416 Compiler Design 27

 A Translation Scheme Example (cont.)
E

T R

id {print(“a”)} + T {print(“+”)} R

id {print(“b”)} + T {print(“+”)} R

id {print(“c”)} 

The depth first traversal of the parse tree (executing the semantic actions in that order)
will produce the postfix representation of the infix expression.
CS416 Compiler Design 28
 Inherited Attributes in Translation Schemes
• If a translation scheme has to contain both synthesized and inherited
attributes, we have to observe the following rules:
1. An inherited attribute of a symbol on the right side of a production
must be computed in a semantic action before that symbol.
2. A semantic action must not refer to a synthesized attribute of a
symbol to the right of that semantic action.
3. A synthesized attribute for the non-terminal on the left can only be
computed after all attributes it references have been computed (we
normally put this semantic action at the end of the right side of the
production).
• With a L-attributed syntax-directed definition, it is always possible
to construct a corresponding translation scheme which satisfies
these three conditions (This may not be possible for a general
syntax-directed translation).
CS416 Compiler Design 29
 Top-Down Translation
• We will look at the implementation of L-attributed definitions during
predictive parsing.
• Instead of the syntax-directed translations, we will work with
translation schemes.
• We will see how to evaluate inherited attributes (in L-attributed
definitions) during recursive predictive parsing.
• We will also look at what happens to attributes during the left-recursion
elimination in the left-recursive grammars.

CS416 Compiler Design 30

 A Translation Scheme with Inherited Attributes
D → T id { addtype(id.entry,T.type), L.in = T.type } L
T → int { T.type = integer }
T → real { T.type = real }
L → id { addtype(id.entry,L.in), L1.in = L.in } L1
L→

• This is a translation scheme for an L-attributed definitions.

CS416 Compiler Design 31

 Predictive Parsing (of Inherited Attributes)
procedure D() {
int Ttype,Lin,identry;
call T(&Ttype); consume(id,&identry);
addtype(identry,Ttype); Lin=Ttype;
call L(Lin); a synthesized attribute (an output parameter)
}
procedure T(int *Ttype) {
if (currtoken is int) { consume(int); *Ttype=TYPEINT; }
else if (currtoken is real) { consume(real); *Ttype=TYPEREAL; }
else { error(“unexpected type”); } an inherited attribute (an input parameter)
}
procedure L(int Lin) {
if (currtoken is id) { int L1in,identry; consume(id,&identry);
addtype(identry,Lin); L1in=Lin; call L(L1in); }
else if (currtoken is endmarker) { }
else { error(“unexpected token”); }
}

CS416 Compiler Design 32

Eliminating Left Recursion from Translation Scheme
• A translation scheme with a left recursive grammar.

E → E1 + T { E.val = E1.val + T.val }

E → E1 - T { E.val = E1.val - T.val }
E → T { E.val = T.val }
T → T1 * F { T.val = T1.val * F.val }
T → F { T.val = F.val }
F→(E) { F.val = E.val }
F → digit { F.val = digit.lexval }

• When we eliminate the left recursion from the grammar (to get a suitable
grammar for the top-down parsing) we also have to change semantic
actions
CS416 Compiler Design 33
 Eliminating Left Recursion (cont.)
inherited attribute synthesized attribute

E → T { A.in=T.val } A { E.val=A.syn }
A → + T { A1.in=A.in+T.val } A1 { A.syn = A1.syn}
A → - T { A1.in=A.in-T.val } A1 { A.syn = A1.syn}
A →  { A.syn = A.in }
T → F { B.in=F.val } B { T.val=B.syn }
B → * F { B1.in=B.in*F.val } B1 { B.syn = B1.syn}
B→ { B.syn = B.in }
F → ( E ) { F.val = E.val }
F → digit { F.val = digit.lexval }
CS416 Compiler Design 34
 Eliminating Left Recursion (in general)
A → A1 Y { A.a = g(A1.a,Y.y) } a left recursive grammar with
A → X { A.a=f(X.x) } synthesized attributes (a,y,x).

 eliminate left recursion

inherited attribute of the new non-terminal
synthesized attribute of the new non-terminal

A → X { R.in=f(X.x) } R { A.a=R.syn }
R → Y { R1.in=g(R.in,Y.y) } R1 { R.syn = R1.syn}
R→ { R.syn = R.in }
CS416 Compiler Design 35
 Evaluating attributes
A parse tree of left recursive grammar

A Y A.a=g(f(X.x),Y.y)
parse tree of non-left-recursive grammar
X X.x=f(X.x) A

X R.in=f(X.x) R A.a=g(f(X.x,Y.y)
Y R1.in=g(f(X.x),Y.y) R1 R.syn=g(f(X.x),Y.y)

 R1.syn=g(f(X.x),Y.y)

CS416 Compiler Design 36

Translation Scheme - Intermediate Code Generation
E → T { A.in=T.loc } A { E.loc=A.loc }
A → + T { A1.in=newtemp(); emit(add,A.in,T.loc,A1.in) }
A1 { A.loc = A1.loc}
A →  { A.loc = A.in }
T → F { B.in=F.loc } B { T.loc=B.loc }
B → * F { B1.in=newtemp(); emit(mult,B.in,F.loc,B1.in) }
B1 { B.loc = B1.loc}
B→ { B.loc = B.in }
F → ( E ) { F.loc = E.loc }
F → id { F.loc = id.name }

CS416 Compiler Design 37

 Predictive Parsing – Intermediate Code Generation
procedure E(char **Eloc) {
char *Ain, *Tloc, *Aloc;
call T(&Tloc); Ain=Tloc;
call A(Ain,&Aloc); *Eloc=Aloc;
}
procedure A(char *Ain, char **Aloc) {
if (currtok is +) {
char *A1in, *Tloc, *A1loc;
consume(+); call T(&Tloc); A1in=newtemp(); emit(“add”,Ain,Tloc,A1in);
call A(A1in,&A1loc); *Aloc=A1loc;
}
else { *Aloc = Ain }
}

CS416 Compiler Design 38

 Predictive Parsing (cont.)
procedure T(char **Tloc) {
char *Bin, *Floc, *Bloc;
call F(&Floc); Bin=Floc;
call B(Bin,&Bloc); *Tloc=Bloc;
}
procedure B(char *Bin, char **Bloc) {
if (currtok is *) {
char *B1in, *Floc, *B1loc;
consume(+); call F(&Floc); B1in=newtemp(); emit(“mult”,Bin,Floc,B1in);
call B(B1in,&B1loc); Bloc=B1loc;
}
else { *Bloc = Bin }
}
procedure F(char **Floc) {
if (currtok is “(“) { char *Eloc; consume(“(“); call E(&Eloc); consume(“)”); *Floc=Eloc }
else { char *idname; consume(id,&idname); *Floc=idname }
}

CS416 Compiler Design 39

 Bottom-Up Evaluation of Inherited Attributes
• Using a top-down translation scheme, we can implement any
L-attributed definition based on a LL(1) grammar.
• Using a bottom-up translation scheme, we can also implement any
L-attributed definition based on a LL(1) grammar (each LL(1) grammar
is also an LR(1) grammar).
• In addition to the L-attributed definitions based on LL(1) grammars,
we can implement some of L-attributed definitions based on LR(1)
grammars (not all of them) using the bottom-up translation scheme.

CS416 Compiler Design 40

 Removing Embedding Semantic Actions
• In bottom-up evaluation scheme, the semantic actions are evaluated
during the reductions.
• During the bottom-up evaluation of S-attributed definitions, we have a
parallel stack to hold synthesized attributes.
• Problem: where are we going to hold inherited attributes?
• A Solution:
– We will convert our grammar to an equivalent grammar to guarantee to the
followings.
– All embedding semantic actions in our translation scheme will be moved into the
end of the production rules.
– All inherited attributes will be copied into the synthesized attributes (most of the
time synthesized attributes of new non-terminals).
– Thus we will be evaluate all semantic actions during reductions, and we find a
place to store an inherited attribute.

CS416 Compiler Design 41

 Removing Embedding Semantic Actions
• To transform our translation scheme into an equivalent translation
scheme:
1. Remove an embedding semantic action Si, put new a non-terminal Mi
instead of that semantic action.
2. Put that semantic action Si into the end of a new production rule Mi
for that non-terminal Mi.
3. That semantic action Si will be evaluated when this new production
rule is reduced.
4. The evaluation order of the semantic rules are not changed by this
transformation.

CS416 Compiler Design 42

 Removing Embedding Semantic Actions
A {S1} X1 {S2} X2 ... {Sn} Xn

 remove embedding semantic actions

A M1 X1 M2 X2 ... Mn Xn
M1 {S1}
M2 {S2}
.
.
Mn {Sn}

CS416 Compiler Design 43

 Removing Embedding Semantic Actions
E→TR
R → + T { print(“+”) } R1
R→
T → id { print(id.name) }

 remove embedding semantic actions

E→TR
R → + T M R1
R→
T → id { print(id.name) }
M →  { print(“+”) }
CS416 Compiler Design 44
 Translation with Inherited Attributes
• Let us assume that every non-terminal A has an inherited attribute A.i, and every
symbol X has a synthesized attribute X.s in our grammar.
• For every production rule A X1 X2 ... Xn ,
– introduce new marker non-terminals M1,M2,...,Mn and
– replace this production rule with A M1 X1 M2 X2 ... Mn Xn
– the synthesized attribute of Xi will be not changed.
– the inherited attribute of Xi will be copied into the synthesized attribute of Mi by the new semantic action
added at the end of the new production rule Mi.
– Now, the inherited attribute of Xi can be found in the synthesized attribute of Mi (which is immediately
available in the stack.

A  {B.i=f1(...)} B {C.i=f2(...)} C {A.s= f3(...)}


A  {M1.i=f1(...)} M1 {B.i=M1.s} B {M2.i=f2(...)} M2 {C.i=M2.s} C {A.s= f3(...)}
M1 {M1.s=M1.i}
M2 {M2.s=M2.i}
CS416 Compiler Design 45
 Translation with Inherited Attributes
S  {A.i=1} A {S.s=k(A.i,A.s)}
A  {B.i=f(A.i)} B {C.i=g(A.i,B.i,B.s)} C {A.s= h(A.i,B.i,B.s,C.i,C.s)}
B  b {B.s=m(B.i,b.s)}
C  c {C.s=n(C.i,c.s)}

S  {M1.i=1} M1 {A.i=M1.s} A {S.s=k(M1.s,A.s)}

A  {M2.i=f(A.i)} M2 {B.i=M2.s} B
{M3.i=g(A.i,M2.s,B.s)} M3 {C.i=M3.s} C {A.s= h(A.i, M2.s,B.s, M3.s,C.s)}
B  b {B.s=m(B.i,b.s)}
C  c {C.s=n(C.i,c.s)}
M1 {M1.s=M1.i}
M2 {M2.s=M2.i}
M3 {M3.s=M3.i}

CS416 Compiler Design 46

 Actual Translation Scheme
S  {M1.i=1} M1 {A.i=M1.s} A {S.s=k(M1.s,A.s)}
A  {M2.i=f(A.i)} M2 {B.i=M2.s} B {M3.i=g(A.i,M2.s,B.s)} M3 {C.i=M3.s} C {A.s= h(A.i, M2.s,B.s, M3.s,C.s)}
B  b {B.s=m(B.i,b.s)}
C  c {C.s=n(C.i,c.s)}
M1 {M1.s= M1.i}
M2 {M2.s=M2.i}
M3 {M3.s=M3.i}

S  M1 A { s[ntop]=k(s[top-1],s[top]) }
M 1  { s[ntop]=1 }
A  M2 B M 3 C { s[ntop]=h(s[top-4],s[top-3],s[top-2],s[top-1],s[top]) }
M 2  { s[ntop]=f(s[top]) }
M 3  { s[ntop]=g(s[top-2],s[top-1],s[top])}
Bb { s[ntop]=m(s[top-1],s[top]) }
Cc { s[ntop]=n(s[top-1],s[top]) }

CS416 Compiler Design 47

 Evaluation of Attributes
S
S.s=k(1,h(..))
A.i=1
A
A.s=h(1,f(1),m(..),g(..),n(..))

B.i=f(1) C.i=g(1,f(1),m(..))
B C
B.s=m(f(1),b.s) C.s=n(g(..),c.s)

b c

CS416 Compiler Design 48

 Evaluation of Attributes
stack input s-attribute stack
bc$
M1 bc$ 1
M1 M2 bc$ 1 f(1)
M1 M2 b c$ 1 f(1) b.s
M1 M2 B c$ 1 f(1) m(f(1),b.s)
M1 M2 B M3 c$ 1 f(1) m(f(1),b.s) g(1,f(1),m(f(1),b.s))
M1 M2 B M3 c $ 1 f(1) m(f(1),b.s) g(1,f(1),m(f(1),b.s)) c.s
M1 M2 B M3 C $ 1 f(1) m(f(1),b.s) g(1,f(1),m(f(1),b.s)) n(g(..),c.s)
M1 A $ 1 h(f(1),m(..),g(..),n(..))
S $ k(1,h(..))
CS416 Compiler Design 49
 Problems
• All L-attributed definitions based on LR grammars cannot be evaluated
during bottom-up parsing.

S  { L.i=0 } L  this translations scheme cannot be implemented

L  { L1.i=L.i+1 } L1 1 during the bottom-up parsing
L   { print(L.i) }

S  M1 L
L  M2 L1 1  But since L   will be reduced first by the bottom-up
L { print(s[top]) } parser, the translator cannot know the number of 1s.
M1   { s[ntop]=0 }
M2   { s[ntop]=s[top]+1 }

CS416 Compiler Design 50

 Problems
• The modified grammar cannot be LR grammar anymore.

LLb LMLb
La  La NOT LR-grammar
M

.L, $
S’ 
L . M L b, $
L . a, $
M .,a  shift/reduce conflict

CS416 Compiler Design 51