Re: C++ Grammar - Update

Patrice Gahide <gahide@lil.univ-littoral.fr>
3 May 2001 13:48:54 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
C++ Grammar - Update mike@dimmick.demon.co.uk (Mike Dimmick) (2001-04-26)
Re: C++ Grammar - Update loewis@informatik.hu-berlin.de (Martin von Loewis) (2001-04-30)
Re: C++ Grammar - Update idbaxter@semdesigns.com (Ira D. Baxter) (2001-05-03)
Re: C++ Grammar - Update mike@dimmick.demon.co.uk (Mike Dimmick) (2001-05-03)
Re: C++ Grammar - Update gahide@lil.univ-littoral.fr (Patrice Gahide) (2001-05-03)
Re: C++ Grammar - Update michael_spencer@btclick.com (Michael Spencer) (2001-05-07)
Re: C++ Grammar - Update michael_spencer@btclick.com (Michael Spencer) (2001-05-13)
Re: C++ Grammar - Update loewis@informatik.hu-berlin.de (Martin von Loewis) (2001-05-13)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Patrice Gahide <gahide@lil.univ-littoral.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers,comp.compilers.tools.pccts
Date: 3 May 2001 13:48:54 -0400
Organization: Universite des Sciences et Technologies de LILLE, France
References: 01-04-141 01-04-155
Keywords: C++, parse
Posted-Date: 03 May 2001 13:48:54 EDT

> It seems that the parser accepts a *very* large superset of C++,
> e.g. the provided Solaris binary accepts
>
> void foo(){
> +
> }
>
> without complaints. So I still doubt that you can do meaningful C++
> parsing w/o semantic analysis in the lexer.


Just a little precision: I currently develop a specific parser using
this grammar. The original grammar (which I use) doesn't accept
this. So the problem must come from the Solaris binaries (I didn't try
them).


Regards,
Patrice Gahide.

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.