Reputation: 4522
I created parser via Flex/Bison, which unexpectedly fails during parsing. Here is simplified sample which shows problem
Lexer.l:
%{
#include "Parser.h"
%}
%option noyywrap nodefault
%%
"foo" { return FOO; }
"bar" { return BAR; }
"(" { return OP; }
")" { return CP; }
[ \t\n]+ { /* DO NOTHING */ }
. { YY_FATAL_ERROR("unknown character"); }
%%
And Parser.y (with enabled tracing and verbosity):
%{
#include <stdio.h>
int yylex();
void yyerror (char const *s);
%}
%debug
%verbose
%error-verbose
%token FOO BAR OP CP
%%
program_expr : foo_expr bar_expr {}
;
foo_expr : /* NOTHING */ {}
| OP FOO CP {}
;
bar_expr : /* NOTHING */ {}
| OP BAR CP {}
;
%%
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
yydebug = 1;
yyparse();
return 0;
}
void yyerror (char const *s) { fprintf(stderr, "%s\n", s); }
But generated parser will fail if I specify input like (bar)
- parse tree in that case should contain foo
expression which is empty. It reports:
Starting parse
Entering state 0
Reading a token: Next token is token OP ()
Shifting token OP ()
Entering state 1
Reading a token: Next token is token BAR ()
syntax error, unexpected BAR, expecting FOO
Error: popping token OP ()
Stack now 0
Cleanup: discarding lookahead token BAR ()
Stack now 0
Here is piece of text from generated description of shift/reduce automata
:
state 0
0 $accept: . program_expr $end
OP shift, and go to state 1
OP [reduce using rule 2 (foo_expr)]
$default reduce using rule 2 (foo_expr)
program_expr go to state 2
foo_expr go to state 3
state 1
3 foo_expr: OP . FOO CP
FOO shift, and go to state 4
state 2
0 $accept: program_expr . $end
$end shift, and go to state 5
state 3
1 program_expr: foo_expr . bar_expr
OP shift, and go to state 6
$default reduce using rule 4 (bar_expr)
bar_expr go to state 7
But I cannot understand meaning/syntax of such states. What's problem with my grammar/parser?
Upvotes: 2
Views: 255
Reputation: 8476
If you want to accept just (bar)
as input, you could use the following:
program_expr : foo_expr bar_expr {}
| bar_expr {}
;
instead of this:
program_expr : foo_expr bar_expr {}
;
Test output:
> echo "(bar)" | ./Parser
Starting parse
Entering state 0
Reading a token: Next token is token OP ()
Shifting token OP ()
Entering state 1
Reading a token: Next token is token BAR ()
Shifting token BAR ()
Entering state 6
Reading a token: Next token is token CP ()
Shifting token CP ()
Entering state 11
Reducing stack by rule 6 (line 20):
$1 = token OP ()
$2 = token BAR ()
$3 = token CP ()
-> $$ = nterm bar_expr ()
Stack now 0
Entering state 4
Reducing stack by rule 2 (line 14):
$1 = nterm bar_expr ()
-> $$ = nterm program_expr ()
Stack now 0
Entering state 2
Reading a token: Now at end of input.
....
Upvotes: 3
Reputation: 175
Bison generates by default LALR(1) parsers. LALR(1) stands for look ahead 1 token left to right parser.
Your grammars is not LALR(1). On OP it is not clear if to expect a foo or a bar. That is a reduce/reduce conflict.
Look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LALR_parser
But generally Bison could generate an LR parser. At least a wiki entry here claims that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Bison
Your case is a "mysterious conflict": https://www.gnu.org/software/bison/manual/html_node/Mysterious-Conflicts.html#Mysterious-Conflicts
Upvotes: 3