0% found this document useful (0 votes)
14 views46 pages

CH 04

Uploaded by

SARANYA M
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
14 views46 pages

CH 04

Uploaded by

SARANYA M
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 46

Chapter 4

Lexical and Syntax


Analysis

ISBN 0-321-49362-1
Chapter 4 Topics

• Introduction
• Lexical Analysis
• The Parsing Problem
• Recursive-Descent Parsing
• Bottom-Up Parsing

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-2


Introduction

• Language implementation systems must


analyze source code, regardless of the
specific implementation approach
• Nearly all syntax analysis is based on a
formal description of the syntax of the
source language (BNF)

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-3


Syntax Analysis

• The syntax analysis portion of a language


processor nearly always consists of two
parts:
– A low-level part called a lexical analyzer
(mathematically, a finite automaton based on
a regular grammar)
– A high-level part called a syntax analyzer, or
parser (mathematically, a push-down
automaton based on a context-free grammar,
or BNF)

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-4


Advantages of Using BNF to Describe
Syntax

• Provides a clear and concise syntax


description
• The parser can be based directly on the
BNF
• Parsers based on BNF are easy to
maintain

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-5


Reasons to Separate Lexical and
Syntax Analysis

• Simplicity - less complex approaches can


be used for lexical analysis; separating
them simplifies the parser
• Efficiency - separation allows optimization
of the lexical analyzer
• Portability - parts of the lexical analyzer
may not be portable, but the parser
always is portable

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-6


Lexical Analysis

• A lexical analyzer is a pattern matcher for


character strings
• A lexical analyzer is a “front-end” for the
parser
• Identifies substrings of the source
program that belong together - lexemes
– Lexemes match a character pattern, which is
associated with a lexical category called a
token
– sum is a lexeme; its token may be IDENT

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-7


Lexical Analysis (continued)

• The lexical analyzer is usually a function that is


called by the parser when it needs the next token
• Three approaches to building a lexical analyzer:
– Write a formal description of the tokens and use a
software tool that constructs table-driven lexical
analyzers given such a description
– Design a state diagram that describes the tokens and
write a program that implements the state diagram
– Design a state diagram that describes the tokens and
hand-construct a table-driven implementation of the
state diagram

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-8


State Diagram Design

– A naïve state diagram would have a transition


from every state on every character in the
source language - such a diagram would be
very large!

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-9


Lexical Analysis (cont.)

• In many cases, transitions can be


combined to simplify the state diagram
– When recognizing an identifier, all uppercase
and lowercase letters are equivalent
• Use a character class that includes all letters
– When recognizing an integer literal, all digits
are equivalent - use a digit class

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-10


Lexical Analysis (cont.)

• Reserved words and identifiers can be


recognized together (rather than having a
part of the diagram for each reserved
word)
– Use a table lookup to determine whether a
possible identifier is in fact a reserved word

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-11


Lexical Analysis (cont.)

• Convenient utility subprograms:


– getChar - gets the next character of input,
puts it in nextChar, determines its class and
puts the class in charClass
– addChar - puts the character from nextChar
into the place the lexeme is being
accumulated, lexeme
– lookup - determines whether the string in
lexeme is a reserved word (returns a code)

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-12


State Diagram

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-13


Lexical Analyzer

Implementation:
 SHOW front.c (pp. 176-181)

- Following is the output of the lexical analyzer


of
front.c when used on (sum + 47) / total

Next token is: 25 Next lexeme is (


Next token is: 11 Next lexeme is sum
Next token is: 21 Next lexeme is +
Next token is: 10 Next lexeme is 47
Next token is: 26 Next lexeme is )
Next token is: 24 Next lexeme is /
Next token is: 11 Next lexeme is total
Next token is: -1 Next lexeme is EOF
Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-14
The Parsing Problem

• Goals of the parser, given an input


program:
– Find all syntax errors; for each, produce an
appropriate diagnostic message and recover
quickly
– Produce the parse tree, or at least a trace of
the parse tree, for the program

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-15


The Parsing Problem (cont.)

• Two categories of parsers


– Top down - produce the parse tree, beginning
at the root
• Order is that of a leftmost derivation
• Traces or builds the parse tree in preorder
– Bottom up - produce the parse tree, beginning
at the leaves
• Order is that of the reverse of a rightmost
derivation
• Useful parsers look only one token ahead
in the input
Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-16
The Parsing Problem (cont.)

• Top-down Parsers
– Given a sentential form, xA , the parser must
choose the correct A-rule to get the next
sentential form in the leftmost derivation,
using only the first token produced by A
• The most common top-down parsing
algorithms:
– Recursive descent - a coded implementation
– LL parsers - table driven implementation

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-17


The Parsing Problem (cont.)

• Bottom-up parsers
– Given a right sentential form, , determine
what substring of  is the right-hand side of
the rule in the grammar that must be reduced
to produce the previous sentential form in the
right derivation
– The most common bottom-up parsing
algorithms are in the LR family

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-18


The Parsing Problem (cont.)

• The Complexity of Parsing


– Parsers that work for any unambiguous
grammar are complex and inefficient ( O(n3),
where n is the length of the input )
– Compilers use parsers that only work for a
subset of all unambiguous grammars, but do it
in linear time ( O(n), where n is the length of
the input )

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-19


Recursive-Descent Parsing

• There is a subprogram for each


nonterminal in the grammar, which can
parse sentences that can be generated by
that nonterminal
• EBNF is ideally suited for being the basis
for a recursive-descent parser, because
EBNF minimizes the number of
nonterminals

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-20


Recursive-Descent Parsing (cont.)

• A grammar for simple expressions:

<expr>  <term> {(+ | -) <term>}


<term>  <factor> {(* | /) <factor>}
<factor>  id | int_constant | ( <expr> )

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-21


Recursive-Descent Parsing (cont.)

• Assume we have a lexical analyzer named


lex, which puts the next token code in
nextToken
• The coding process when there is only one
RHS:
– For each terminal symbol in the RHS, compare
it with the next input token; if they match,
continue, else there is an error
– For each nonterminal symbol in the RHS, call
its associated parsing subprogram

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-22


Recursive-Descent Parsing (cont.)
/* Function expr
Parses strings in the language
generated by the rule:
<expr> → <term> {(+ | -) <term>}
*/

void expr() {

/* Parse the first term */

term();
/* As long as the next token is + or -, call
lex to get the next token and parse the
next term */

while (nextToken == ADD_OP ||


nextToken == SUB_OP){
lex();
term();
}
}

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-23


Recursive-Descent Parsing (cont.)

• This particular routine does not detect errors


• Convention: Every parsing routine leaves the
next token in nextToken

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-24


Recursive-Descent Parsing (cont.)

• A nonterminal that has more than one


RHS requires an initial process to
determine which RHS it is to parse
– The correct RHS is chosen on the basis of the
next token of input (the lookahead)
– The next token is compared with the first
token that can be generated by each RHS until
a match is found
– If no match is found, it is a syntax error

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-25


Recursive-Descent Parsing (cont.)

/* term
Parses strings in the language generated by the rule:
<term> -> <factor> {(* | /) <factor>)
*/
void term() {
printf("Enter <term>\n");
/* Parse the first factor */
factor();
/* As long as the next token is * or /,
next token and parse the next factor */
while (nextToken == MULT_OP || nextToken == DIV_OP) {
lex();
factor();
}
printf("Exit <term>\n");
} /* End of function term */

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-26


Recursive-Descent Parsing (cont.)

/* Function factor
Parses strings in the language
generated by the rule:
<factor> -> id | (<expr>) */

void factor() {

/* Determine which RHS */


if (nextToken) == ID_CODE || nextToken == INT_CODE)

/* For the RHS id, just call lex */


lex();

/* If the RHS is (<expr>) – call lex to pass over the left parenthesis,
call expr, and check for the right parenthesis */
else if (nextToken == LP_CODE) {
lex();
expr();
if (nextToken == RP_CODE)
lex();
else
error();
} /* End of else if (nextToken == ... */

else error(); /* Neither RHS matches */


}

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-27


Recursive-Descent Parsing (cont.)
- Trace of the lexical and syntax analyzers on (sum + 47) / total

Next token is: 25 Next lexeme is ( Next token is: 11 Next lexeme is total
Enter <expr> Enter <factor>
Enter <term> Next token is: -1 Next lexeme is EOF
Enter <factor> Exit <factor>
Next token is: 11 Next lexeme is sum Exit <term>
Enter <expr> Exit <expr>
Enter <term>
Enter <factor>
Next token is: 21 Next lexeme is +
Exit <factor>
Exit <term>
Next token is: 10 Next lexeme is 47
Enter <term>
Enter <factor>
Next token is: 26 Next lexeme is )
Exit <factor>
Exit <term>
Exit <expr>
Next token is: 24 Next lexeme is /
Exit <factor>

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-28


Recursive-Descent Parsing (cont.)

• The LL Grammar Class


– The Left Recursion Problem
• If a grammar has left recursion, either direct or
indirect, it cannot be the basis for a top-down
parser
– A grammar can be modified to remove left recursion
For each nonterminal, A,
1. Group the A-rules as A → Aα1 | … | Aαm | β1 | β2 | … |
βn
where none of the β‘s begins with A
2. Replace the original A-rules with
A → β1A’ | β2A’ | … | βnA’
A’ → α1A’ | α2A’ | … | αmA’ | ε
Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-29
Recursive-Descent Parsing (cont.)

• The other characteristic of grammars that


disallows top-down parsing is the lack of
pairwise disjointness
– The inability to determine the correct RHS on
the basis of one token of lookahead
– Def: FIRST() = {a |  =>* a }
(If  =>* ,  is in FIRST())

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-30


Recursive-Descent Parsing (cont.)

• Pairwise Disjointness Test:


– For each nonterminal, A, in the grammar that
has more than one RHS, for each pair of rules,
A  i and A  j, it must be true that
FIRST(i) ⋂ FIRST(j) = 
• Examples:
A  a | bB | cAb
A  a | aB

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-31


Recursive-Descent Parsing (cont.)

• Left factoring can resolve the problem


Replace
<variable>  identifier | identifier
[<expression>]
with
<variable>  identifier <new>
<new>   | [<expression>]
or
<variable>  identifier [[<expression>]]
(the outer brackets are metasymbols of EBNF)

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-32


Bottom-up Parsing

• The parsing problem is finding the correct


RHS in a right-sentential form to reduce to
get the previous right-sentential form in
the derivation

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-33


Bottom-up Parsing (cont.)

•Intuition about handles:


– Def:  is the handle of the right sentential form
 = w if and only if S =>*rm Aw =>rm w

– Def:  is a phrase of the right sentential form


 if and only if S =>*  = 1A2 =>+ 12

– Def:  is a simple phrase of the right sentential


form  if and only if S =>*  = 1A2 => 12

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-34


Bottom-up Parsing (cont.)

• Intuition about handles (continued):


– The handle of a right sentential form is its
leftmost simple phrase
– Given a parse tree, it is now easy to find the
handle
– Parsing can be thought of as handle pruning

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-35


Bottom-up Parsing (cont.)

• Shift-Reduce Algorithms
– Reduce is the action of replacing the handle
on the top of the parse stack with its
corresponding LHS
– Shift is the action of moving the next token to
the top of the parse stack

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-36


Bottom-up Parsing (cont.)

• Advantages of LR parsers:
– They will work for nearly all grammars that
describe programming languages.
– They work on a larger class of grammars than
other bottom-up algorithms, but are as
efficient as any other bottom-up parser.
– They can detect syntax errors as soon as it is
possible.
– The LR class of grammars is a superset of the
class parsable by LL parsers.

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-37


Bottom-up Parsing (cont.)

• LR parsers must be constructed with a


tool
• Knuth’s insight: A bottom-up parser could
use the entire history of the parse, up to
the current point, to make parsing
decisions
– There were only a finite and relatively small
number of different parse situations that could
have occurred, so the history could be stored
in a parser state, on the parse stack

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-38


Bottom-up Parsing (cont.)

• An LR configuration stores the state of an


LR parser

(S0X1S1X2S2…XmSm, aiai+1…an$)

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-39


Bottom-up Parsing (cont.)

• LR parsers are table driven, where the


table has two components, an ACTION
table and a GOTO table
– The ACTION table specifies the action of the
parser, given the parser state and the next
token
• Rows are state names; columns are terminals
– The GOTO table specifies which state to put
on top of the parse stack after a reduction
action is done
• Rows are state names; columns are
nonterminals
Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-40
Structure of An LR Parser

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-41


Bottom-up Parsing (cont.)

• Initial configuration: (S0, a1…an$)


• Parser actions:
– If ACTION[Sm, ai] = Shift S, the next
configuration is:
(S0X1S1X2S2…XmSmaiS, ai+1…an$)
– If ACTION[Sm, ai] = Reduce A   and S =
GOTO[Sm-r, A], where r = the length of , the
next configuration is
(S0X1S1X2S2…Xm-rSm-rAS, aiai+1…an$)

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-42


Bottom-up Parsing (cont.)

• Parser actions (continued):


– If ACTION[Sm, ai] = Accept, the parse is
complete and no errors were found.
– If ACTION[Sm, ai] = Error, the parser calls an
error-handling routine.

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-43


LR Parsing Table

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-44


Bottom-up Parsing (cont.)

• A parser table can be generated from a


given grammar with a tool, e.g., yacc

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-45


Summary

• Syntax analysis is a common part of language


implementation
• A lexical analyzer is a pattern matcher that
isolates small-scale parts of a program
– Detects syntax errors
– Produces a parse tree
• A recursive-descent parser is an LL parser
– EBNF
• Parsing problem for bottom-up parsers: find the
substring of current sentential form
• The LR family of shift-reduce parsers is the most
common bottom-up parsing approach

Copyright © 2009 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-46

You might also like