Re: LALR(1)- but not LR(1)-conflict

frederic.tendeau@inria.fr (Frederic Tendeau)
Thu, 9 Feb 1995 18:29:11 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
LALR(1)- but not LR(1)-conflict holzmuel@kafka.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de (1995-01-31)
Re: LALR(1)- but not LR(1)-conflict adam@index.ping.dk (1995-02-02)
Re: LALR(1)- but not LR(1)-conflict salomon@silver.cs.umanitoba.ca (1995-02-03)
Re: LALR(1)- but not LR(1)-conflict Robert.Corbett@Eng.Sun.COM (1995-02-04)
Re: LALR(1)- but not LR(1)-conflict frederic.tendeau@inria.fr (1995-02-09)
Re: LALR(1)- but not LR(1)-conflict ludemann@netcom.com (1995-02-12)
Re: LALR(1)- but not LR(1)-conflict adam@index.ping.dk (1995-02-18)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: frederic.tendeau@inria.fr (Frederic Tendeau)
Keywords: LALR, LR(1)
Organization: INRIA Rocquencourt
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 18:29:11 GMT

I remember a very simple example, helpful to distinguish
LR(0), SLR(1), LALR(1) and LR(1):


LR(0)
E -> aed
E -> aec
E -> bec
E -> bed


not LR(0)
SLR(1)
E -> aAd
E -> aec
E -> bec
E -> bed
A -> e


not LR(0)
not SLR(1)
LALR(1)
E -> aAd
E -> aec
E -> bAc
E -> bed
A -> e


not LR(0)
not SLR(1)
not LALR(1)
LR(1)
E -> aAd
E -> aBc
E -> bAc
E -> bBd
A -> e
B -> e


Enjoy!
Frederic Tendeau
--

Post a followup to this message

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