1 Contents Introduction A Simple Compiler Scanning – Theory and Practice Grammars and Parsing LL(1) Parsing LR Parsing Lex and yacc Semantic Processing.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Parsing V: Bottom-up Parsing
Advertisements

Compiler Construction
Chap. 5, Top-Down Parsing J. H. Wang Mar. 29, 2011.
YANGYANG 1 Chap 5 LL(1) Parsing LL(1) left-to-right scanning leftmost derivation 1-token lookahead parser generator: Parsing becomes the easiest! Modifying.
Mooly Sagiv and Roman Manevich School of Computer Science
6/12/2015Prof. Hilfinger CS164 Lecture 111 Bottom-Up Parsing Lecture (From slides by G. Necula & R. Bodik)
Top-Down Parsing.
1 Semantic Processing. 2 Contents Introduction Introduction A Simple Compiler A Simple Compiler Scanning – Theory and Practice Scanning – Theory and Practice.
Parsing III (Eliminating left recursion, recursive descent parsing)
ISBN Chapter 4 Lexical and Syntax Analysis The Parsing Problem Recursive-Descent Parsing.
1 Predictive parsing Recall the main idea of top-down parsing: Start at the root, grow towards leaves Pick a production and try to match input May need.
Chapter 2 A Simple Compiler
1 Chapter 4: Top-Down Parsing. 2 Objectives of Top-Down Parsing an attempt to find a leftmost derivation for an input string. an attempt to construct.
Table-driven parsing Parsing performed by a finite state machine. Parsing algorithm is language-independent. FSM driven by table (s) generated automatically.
Chapter 2 A Simple Compiler
1 Chapter 3 Context-Free Grammars and Parsing. 2 Parsing: Syntax Analysis decides which part of the incoming token stream should be grouped together.
1 Contents Introduction Introduction A Simple Compiler A Simple Compiler Scanning – Theory and Practice Scanning – Theory and Practice Grammars and Parsing.
(2.1) Grammars  Definitions  Grammars  Backus-Naur Form  Derivation – terminology – trees  Grammars and ambiguity  Simple example  Grammar hierarchies.
CPSC 388 – Compiler Design and Construction
Syntax and Semantics Structure of programming languages.
1 Chapter 2 A Simple Compiler. 2 Outlines 2.1 The Structure of a Micro Compiler 2.2 A Micro Scanner 2.3 The Syntax of Micro 2.4 Recursive Descent Parsing.
Review: –How do we define a grammar (what are the components in a grammar)? –What is a context free grammar? –What is the language defined by a grammar?
Top-Down Parsing - recursive descent - predictive parsing
1 Chapter 5 LL (1) Grammars and Parsers. 2 Naming of parsing techniques The way to parse token sequence L: Leftmost R: Righmost Top-down  LL Bottom-up.
Chapter 5 Top-Down Parsing.
LANGUAGE TRANSLATORS: WEEK 3 LECTURE: Grammar Theory Introduction to Parsing Parser - Generators TUTORIAL: Questions on grammar theory WEEKLY WORK: Read.
10/13/2015IT 3271 Tow kinds of predictive parsers: Bottom-Up: The syntax tree is built up from the leaves Example: LR(1) parser Top-Down The syntax tree.
Parsing G Programming Languages May 24, 2012 New York University Chanseok Oh
# 1 CMPS 450 Parsing CMPS 450 J. Moloney. # 2 CMPS 450 Check that input is well-formed Build a parse tree or similar representation of input Recursive.
Parsing III (Top-down parsing: recursive descent & LL(1) )
1 Top Down Parsing. CS 412/413 Spring 2008Introduction to Compilers2 Outline Top-down parsing SLL(1) grammars Transforming a grammar into SLL(1) form.
1 Chapter 3 Describing Syntax and Semantics. 3.1 Introduction Providing a concise yet understandable description of a programming language is difficult.
C Chuen-Liang Chen, NTUCS&IE / 77 TOP-DOWN PARSING Chuen-Liang Chen Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering National Taiwan University.
Profs. Necula CS 164 Lecture Top-Down Parsing ICOM 4036 Lecture 5.
Lesson 3 CDT301 – Compiler Theory, Spring 2011 Teacher: Linus Källberg.
CS 153 A little bit about LR Parsing. Background We’ve seen three ways to write parsers:  By hand, typically recursive descent  Using parsing combinators.
11 Outline  6.0 Introduction  6.1 Shift-Reduce Parsers  6.2 LR Parsers  6.3 LR(1) Parsing  6.4 SLR(1)Parsing  6.5 LALR(1)  6.6 Calling Semantic.
COP4020 Programming Languages Syntax Prof. Robert van Engelen (modified by Prof. Em. Chris Lacher)
Parsing III (Top-down parsing: recursive descent & LL(1) ) Copyright 2003, Keith D. Cooper, Ken Kennedy & Linda Torczon, all rights reserved. Students.
CPS 506 Comparative Programming Languages Syntax Specification.
COP4020 Programming Languages Parsing Prof. Xin Yuan.
1 Parsers and Grammar. 2 Categories of Grammar Rules  Declarations or definitions. AttributeDeclaration ::= [ final ] [ static ] [ access ] datatype.
1Computer Sciences Department. Book: INTRODUCTION TO THE THEORY OF COMPUTATION, SECOND EDITION, by: MICHAEL SIPSER Reference 3Computer Sciences Department.
Top-down Parsing Recursive Descent & LL(1) Comp 412 Copyright 2010, Keith D. Cooper & Linda Torczon, all rights reserved. Students enrolled in Comp 412.
Top-Down Parsing CS 671 January 29, CS 671 – Spring Where Are We? Source code: if (b==0) a = “Hi”; Token Stream: if (b == 0) a = “Hi”; Abstract.
Parsing Chapter 15. The Job of a Parser Examine a string and decide whether or not it is a syntactically well-formed member of L(G), and If it is, assign.
1 Nonrecursive Predictive Parsing  It is possible to build a nonrecursive predictive parser  This is done by maintaining an explicit stack.
Top-down Parsing. 2 Parsing Techniques Top-down parsers (LL(1), recursive descent) Start at the root of the parse tree and grow toward leaves Pick a production.
1 Compiler Construction (CS-636) Muhammad Bilal Bashir UIIT, Rawalpindi.
Top-Down Parsing.
8 January 2004 Department of Software & Media Technology 1 Top Down Parsing Recursive Descent Parsing Top-down parsing: –Build tree from root symbol –Each.
Bernd Fischer RW713: Compiler and Software Language Engineering.
Parsing III (Top-down parsing: recursive descent & LL(1) )
COMP 3438 – Part II-Lecture 6 Syntax Analysis III Dr. Zili Shao Department of Computing The Hong Kong Polytechnic Univ.
CMSC 330: Organization of Programming Languages Pushdown Automata Parsing.
Programming Languages Translator
Lecture #12 Parsing Types.
Table-driven parsing Parsing performed by a finite state machine.
Top-Down Parsing CS 671 January 29, 2008.
CPSC 388 – Compiler Design and Construction
CS 540 George Mason University
LL and Recursive-Descent Parsing Hal Perkins Autumn 2011
Chapter 5 Grammars and Parsers
LL and Recursive-Descent Parsing
Recursive descent parsing
LL and Recursive-Descent Parsing Hal Perkins Autumn 2009
Compilers Principles, Techniques, & Tools Taught by Jing Zhang
LL and Recursive-Descent Parsing Hal Perkins Winter 2008
Recursive descent parsing
Presentation transcript:

1 Contents Introduction A Simple Compiler Scanning – Theory and Practice Grammars and Parsing LL(1) Parsing LR Parsing Lex and yacc Semantic Processing Symbol Tables Run-time Storage Organization Code Generation and Local Code Optimization Global Optimization

2 Chapter 5 Grammars and Parsers

3 The LL(1) Predict Function Given the productions A  1 A  2 … A  n During a (leftmost) derivation … A …  …  1 …or …  2 …or …  n … Deciding which production to match  Using lookahead symbols

4 The LL(1) Predict Function

5

6 The limitation of LL(1)  LL(1) contains exactly those grammars that have disjoint predict sets for productions that share a common left-hand side. Single Symbol Lookahead

7 Not extended BNF form $: end of file token

8

9

10 The LL(1) Parse Table An LL(1) parse table The definition of T

11 Building Recursive Descent Parsers from LL(1) Tables Similar the implementation of a scanner, there are two kinds of parsers  Build in The parsing decisions recorded in LL(1) tables can be hardwired into the parsing procedures used by recursive descent parsers.  Table-driven

12 Building Recursive Descent Parsers from LL(1) Tables The form of parsing procedure:

13 Building Recursive Descent Parsers from LL(1) Tables E.g. of an parsing procedure for in Micro

14 Building Recursive Descent Parsers from LL(1) Tables An algorithm that automatically creates parsing procedures like the one in Figure 5.6 from LL(1) table

15 Building Recursive Descent Parsers from LL(1) Tables The data structure for describing grammars

16 Building Recursive Descent Parsers from LL(1) Tables gen_actions()  Takes the grammar symbols and generates the actions necessary to match them in a recursive descent parse

17

18 An LL(1) Parser Driver Rather than using the LL(1) table to build parsing procedures, it is possible to use the table in conjunction with a driver program to form an LL(1) parser. Smaller and faster than a corresponding recursive descent parser Changing a grammar and building a new parser is easy  New LL(1) driver are computed and substituted for the old tables.

19 A  aBcD A D c B a

20 LL(1) Action Symbols During parsing, the appearance of an action symbol in a production will server to initiate the corresponding semantic action – a call to the corresponding semantic routine. gen_action(“ID:= #gen_assign;”) match(ID); match(ASSIGN); exp(); assign(); match(semicolon);

21 LL(1) Action Symbols The semantic routine calls pass no explicit parameters  Necessary parameters are transmitted through a semantic stack  Semantic stack  parse stack Semantic stack is a stack of semantic records. Action symbols are pushed to the parse stack  See Figure 5.11

22 Difference between Fig. 5.9 and Fig 5.11

23 Making Grammars LL(1) Not all grammars are LL(1). However, some non-LL(1) grammars can be made LL(1) by simple modifications. When a grammar is not LL(1) ? This is called a conflict, which means we do not know which production to use when is on stack top and ID is the next input token. ID 2,5

24 Making Grammars LL(1) Major LL(1) prediction conflicts  Common prefixes (Left factoring)  Left recursion Common prefixes  if then  if then else Solution: factoring transform ( 提出左因子 )  See Figure 5.12

25 Making Grammars LL(1)  if then  end if;  else end if;

26 Making Grammars LL(1) Grammars with left-recursive production can never be LL(1) A  A   Why? A will be the top stack symbol, and hence the same production would be predicted forever.

27 Making Grammars LL(1) Solution: Figure 5.13 AAA…AAAA…A A  NT N  … N  T  T 

28 Making Grammars LL(1) Other transformation may be needed  No common prefixes, no left recursion 1  2  ID : 3  4  ID := ; ID 2,3

29 Making Grammars LL(1)  ID  :  := ;  ID := ; look ahead 2 tokens Example A:B := C ; B := C ;

30 Making Grammars LL(1) In Ada, we may declare arrays as A: array(I.. J, BOOLEAN) A straightforward grammar for array bound ..  ID Solution  .. 

31 Making Grammars LL(1) Greibach Normal Form  Every production is of the form A  a   a is a terminal and is a  (possible empty) string of variables  Every context-free language L without can be generated by a grammar in Greibach Normal Form  Factoring of common prefixes is easy Given a grammar G, we can  G  GNF  No common prefixes, no left recursion (but may be still not LL(1))

32 The If-Then-Else Problem in LL(1) Parsing “Dangling else” problem in Algo60, Pascal, and C  else clause is optional BL={[ i ] j | i  j  0} [  if then ]  else BL is not LL(1) and in fact not LL(k) for any k

33 The If-Then-Else Problem in LL(1) First try  G 1 : S  [ S CL S  CL  ] CL  G 1 is ambiguous: E.g., [[ ] S [ S CL ] S [ S CL ]

34 Second try  G 2 : S  [S S  S1 S1  [S1] S1  G 2 is not ambiguous: E.g., [[] The problem is [  First([S) and [  First(S1) [[  First 2 ([S) and [[  First 2 (S1)  G 2 is not LL(1), nor is it LL(k) for any k. The If-Then-Else Problem in LL(1) [ S1 [ S1 ] S

35 Solution: conflicts + special rules  G 3 : G  S; S  if S E S  Other E  else S E  G 3 is ambiguous We can enforce that T[E, else] = 4th rule. This essentially forces “else “ to be matched with the nearest unpaired “ if “. The If-Then-Else Problem in LL(1)

36 If all if statements are terminated with an end if, or some equivalent symbol, the problem disappears. S  if S E S  Other E  else S end if E  end if An alternative solution  Change the language The If-Then-Else Problem in LL(1)