Sat, 13 Oct 2012 20:11:44 -0700 (PDT)

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
LRstar (2012-10-13)
| List of all articles for this month |

Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 20:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: Compilers Central
Keywords: parse, tools
Posted-Date: 14 Oct 2012 17:34:37 EDT

I finally got around to using LRstar (by Paul Mann). I am doing some
retro-computing. A for the fun of it project is to re-create the Rockwell
Aim65 PL/65 compiler. The syntax seemed almost impossible to write a grammar
for that did not have conflicts.One of the hardest ones to resolve was for
this production:

assignment ->MemRef '=' expr
                      ->MemRef '+' expr
                      ->MemRef '-' expr

The production with the '+' in it would be similar to += in C. And if I
changed the '+' to += and the '-' to '-=', that would of course fix the
problem, but it would not be compatible with PL/65 syntax.

I used LRstar to first analyze the grammar with the (nd=2 switch which let it
use lalr(k) parsing. This of course worked. But I also dug through the
conflicts report and was easily able to figure out how to fix the grammar to
make it 'lalr(1)' with no conflicts. One of the LRstar operators, '/->' which
is the same as the '->' will tell LRstar which rules you want it to use when a
conflict occurs. So I easily got the grammar going. This is the first parser
generator I have used that gave me a conflict report I could understand. So,
despite the fact I thought I needed LALR(k), I ended up only needing LALR(1).

Now, I just have to figure out how to make LRstar work with my AST class that
I made, or just figure out the AST generation that is built into LRstar.


Post a followup to this message

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