Compiler Design

(KCS-502)
Unit-2
Basic Parsing technique
Mr. B N Pandey
Asst. Prof.
Department of CSE
AKGEC, Ghaziabad 1
 Course Outline

• CLR Parsing
• LALR Parsing
• Using Ambiguous Grammar

2
shift/reduce and reduce/reduce conflicts

• If a state does not know whether it will make a shift

operation or reduction for a terminal, we say that there is a
shift/reduce conflict.

• If a state does not know whether it will make a reduction

operation using the production rule i or j for a terminal, we
say that there is a reduce/reduce conflict.

• If the SLR parsing table of a grammar G has a conflict, we say

that that grammar is not SLR grammar.
3
Conflict Example
S → L=R I0: S’ → .S I1: S’ → S. I6: S → L=.R I9 : S → L=R.
S→R S → .L=R R → .L
L→ *R S → .R I2: S → L.=R L→ .*R
L → id L → .*R R → L. L → .id
R→L L → .id
R → .L I3: S → R.

I4: L → *.R I7: L → *R.

Problem R → .L
FOLLOW(R)={=,$} L→ .*R I8: R → L.
= shift 6 L → .id
reduce by R → L
shift/reduce conflict I5: L → id.

4
Conflict Example2
S → AaAb I0: S’ → .S
S → BbBa S → .AaAb
A→ε S → .BbBa
B→ε A→.
B→.

Problem
FOLLOW(A)={a,b}
FOLLOW(B)={a,b}
a reduce by A → ε b reduce by A → ε
reduce by B → ε reduce by B → ε
reduce/reduce conflict reduce/reduce conflict

5
Constructing Canonical LR(1) Parsing Tables
• In SLR method, the state i makes a reduction by A→α
when the current token is a:
• if the A→α. in the Ii and a is FOLLOW(A)

• In some situations, βA cannot be followed by the terminal

a in a right-sentential form when βα and the state i
are on the top stack. This means that making reduction
in this case is not correct.

S → AaAb S⇒AaAb⇒Aab⇒ab S⇒BbBa⇒Bba⇒ba

S → BbBa
A→ε Aab ⇒ ε ab Bba ⇒ ε ba
B→ε AaAb ⇒ Aa ε b BbBa ⇒ Bb ε a
6
 LR(1) Item
• To avoid some of invalid reductions, the states need to carry
more information.
• Extra information is put into a state by including a terminal
symbol as a second component in an item.

• A LR(1) item is:

.
A → α β,a where a is the look-head of the LR(1) item
(a is a terminal or end-marker.)

7
 LR(1) Item (cont.)
.
• When β ( in the LR(1) item A → α β,a ) is not empty, the look-head
does not have any affect.
.
• When β is empty (A → α ,a ), we do the reduction by A→α only if
the next input symbol is a (not for any terminal in FOLLOW(A)).

• A state will contain .

A → α ,a1 where {a1,...,an} ⊆ FOLLOW(A)
...
.
A → α ,an

8
Canonical Collection of Sets of LR(1) Items
• The construction of the canonical collection of the sets of LR(1)
items are similar to the construction of the canonical collection of
the sets of LR(0) items, except that closure and goto operations
work a little bit different.

closure(I) is: ( where I is a set of LR(1) items)

• every LR(1) item in I is in closure(I)
.
• if A→α Bβ,a in closure(I) and B→γ is a production rule of G;
γ,b will be in the closure(I) for each terminal b in FIRST(βa) .
then B→.

9
goto operation
• If I is a set of LR(1) items and X is a grammar symbol (terminal or
non-terminal), then goto(I,X) is defined as follows:
• If A → α.Xβ,a in I then
every item in closure({A → αX.β,a}) will be in goto(I,X).

10
Construction of The Canonical LR(1)
Collection
• Algorithm:
C is { closure({S’→.S,$}) }
repeat the followings until no more set of LR(1) items can be added to C.
for each I in C and each grammar symbol X
if goto(I,X) is not empty and not in C
add goto(I,X) to C

• goto function is a DFA on the sets in C.

11
A Short Notation for The Sets of LR(1) Items
• A set of LR(1) items containing the following items
.
A → α β,a1
...
.
A → α β,an

can be written as

.
A → α β,a1/a2/.../an
12
Canonical LR(1) Collection -- Example
S
A
S → AaAb I0: S’ → .S ,$ I1: S’ → S. ,$ a to I4
S → BbBa S → .AaAb ,$ B
A→ε S → .BbBa ,$ I2: S → A.aAb ,$ b to I5
B→ε A → . ,a
B → . ,b A I3: S → B.bBa ,$ a

I4: S → Aa.Ab ,$ I6: S → AaA.b ,$ I8: S → AaAb. ,$

A → . ,b B b

I5: S → Bb.Ba ,$ I7: S → BbB.a ,$ I9: S → BbBa. ,$

B → . ,a

13
 Canonical LR(1) Collection – Example2
S’ → S I0:S’ → .S,$ I1:S’ → S.,$ I4:L → *.R,$/= R to I7
1) S → L=R S → .L=R,$ S * R → .L,$/= L
to I8
2) S → R S → .R,$ L I2:S → L.=R,$ to I6 L→ .*R,$/= *
3) L→ *R L → .*R,$/= R → L.,$ L → .id,$/= to I4
id
4) L → id L → .id,$/= R to I5
I3:S → R.,$ id
5) R → L R → .L,$ I5:L → id.,$/=

I9:S → L=R.,$
R I13:L → *R.,$
I6:S → L=.R,$ to I9
R → .L,$ L I10:R → L.,$
to I10
L → .*R,$ * I4 and I11
to I11 I11:L → *.R,$ R
L → .id,$ to I13
id R → .L,$ L I5 and I12
to I12 to I10
L→ .*R,$ *
I7:L → *R.,$/= L → .id,$ to I11 I7 and I13
id
I8: R → L.,$/= to I12
I12:L → id.,$ I8 and I10

14
Construction of LR(1) Parsing Tables
1. Construct the canonical collection of sets of LR(1) items for G’. C←{I0,...,In}

2. Create the parsing action table as follows

•
• .. .
If a is a terminal, A→α aβ,b in Ii and goto(Ii,a)=Ij then action[i,a] is shift j.
If A→α ,a is in Ii , then action[i,a] is reduce A→α where A≠S’.
• If S’→S ,$ is in Ii , then action[i,$] is accept.
• If any conflicting actions generated by these rules, the grammar is not LR(1).

3. Create the parsing goto table

• for all non-terminals A, if goto(Ii,A)=Ij then goto[i,A]=j

4. All entries not defined by (2) and (3) are errors.

5. Initial state of the parser contains S’→.S,$

15
 LR(1) Parsing Tables – (for Example2)
id * = $ S L R
0 s5 s4 1 2 3
1 acc
2 s6 r5
3 r2
4 s5 s4 8 7
no shift/reduce or
5 r4 r4
no reduce/reduce conflict
6 s12 s11 10 9
7 r3 r3 ⇓
8 r5 r5 so, it is a LR(1) grammar
9 r1
10 r5
11 s12 s11 10 13
12 r4
13 r3

16
 LALR Parsing Tables
• LALR stands for LookAhead LR.

• LALR parsers are often used in practice because LALR parsing tables
are smaller than LR(1) parsing tables.
• The number of states in SLR and LALR parsing tables for a grammar G
are equal.
• But LALR parsers recognize more grammars than SLR parsers.
• yacc creates a LALR parser for the given grammar.
• A state of LALR parser will be again a set of LR(1) items.

17
Creating LALR Parsing Tables
Canonical LR(1) Parser LALR Parser
shrink # of states

• This shrink process may introduce a reduce/reduce conflict in the

resulting LALR parser (so the grammar is NOT LALR)
• But, this shrink process does not produce a shift/reduce conflict.

18
 The Core of A Set of LR(1) Items
• The core of a set of LR(1) items is the set of its first component.

.
Ex: S → L =R,$ .
S → L =R Core
.
R → L ,$ R→L .
• We will find the states (sets of LR(1) items) in a canonical LR(1) parser with same cores.
Then we will merge them as a single state.

.
I1:L → id ,= .
A new state: I12: L → id ,=
.
L → id ,$
.
I2:L → id ,$ have same core, merge them

• We will do this for all states of a canonical LR(1) parser to get the states of the LALR
parser.
• In fact, the number of the states of the LALR parser for a grammar will be equal to the 19
number of states of the SLR parser for that grammar.
 Creation of LALR Parsing Tables
• Create the canonical LR(1) collection of the sets of LR(1) items for
the given grammar.
• Find each core; find all sets having that same core; replace those sets
having same cores with a single set which is their union.
C={I0,...,In} C’={J1,...,Jm} where m ≤ n
• Create the parsing tables (action and goto tables) same as the
construction of the parsing tables of LR(1) parser.
• Note that: If J=I1 ∪ ... ∪ Ik since I1,...,Ik have same cores
cores of goto(I1,X),...,goto(I2,X) must be same.
• So, goto(J,X)=K where K is the union of all sets of items having same cores as
goto(I1,X).

• If no conflict is introduced, the grammar is LALR(1) grammar.

(We may only introduce reduce/reduce conflicts; we cannot
introduce a shift/reduce conflict) 20
 Shift/Reduce Conflict
• We say that we cannot introduce a shift/reduce conflict during the
shrink process for the creation of the states of a LALR parser.
• Assume that we can introduce a shift/reduce conflict. In this case,
a state of LALR parser must have:
.
A → α ,a and B → β.aγ,b
• This means that a state of the canonical LR(1) parser must have:
A → α.,a and B → β.aγ,c
But, this state has also a shift/reduce conflict. i.e. The original
canonical LR(1) parser has a conflict.
(Reason for this, the shift operation does not depend on
lookaheads)

21
 Reduce/Reduce Conflict

• But, we may introduce a reduce/reduce conflict during the

shrink process for the creation of the states of a LALR parser.

.
I1 : A → α ,a .
I2: A → α ,b
B → β.,b B → β.,c
⇓
.
I12: A → α ,a/b reduce/reduce conflict
B → β.,b/c

22
 Canonical LALR(1) Collection – Example2
S’ → S .
I0:S’ → S,$ .
I1:S’ → S ,$ .
I411:L → * R,$/= R to I713
1) S → L=R
.
S → L=R,$
S
.
*
.
R → L,$/= L
to I810
2) S → R
.
S → R,$
L I2:S → L =R,$
.
to I6
.
L→ *R,$/=
*
to I411
3) L→ *R
4) L → id .
L → *R,$/= R
R → L ,$

. .
L → id,$/=
id

5) R → L .
L → id,$/= I3:S → R ,$
id
.
I512:L → id ,$/=
to I512

.
R → L,$

.
I6:S → L= R,$
R
to I9 I9:S → L=R ,$. Same Cores
.
R → L,$
L
to I810 I4 and I11
.
L → *R,$
*
to I411
.
L → id,$ id
to I512
I5 and I12

.
I713:L → *R ,$/=
I7 and I13

.
I810: R → L ,$/= I8 and I10

23
LALR(1) Parsing Tables – (for Example2)
id * = $ S L R
0 s5 s4 1 2 3
1 acc no shift/reduce or
2 s6 r5 no reduce/reduce conflict

⇓
3 r2
4 s5 s4 8 7
5 r4 r4 so, it is a LALR(1) grammar
6 s12 s11 10 9
7 r3 r3
8 r5 r5
9 r1

24
 Using Ambiguous Grammars
• All grammars used in the construction of LR-parsing tables must
be un-ambiguous.
• Can we create LR-parsing tables for ambiguous grammars ?
• Yes, but they will have conflicts.
• We can resolve these conflicts in favor of one of them to disambiguate
the grammar.
• At the end, we will have again an unambiguous grammar.
• Why we want to use an ambiguous grammar?
• Some of the ambiguous grammars are much natural, and a
corresponding unambiguous grammar can be very complex.
• Usage of an ambiguous grammar may eliminate unnecessary
reductions.
• Ex.
E → E+T | T
E → E+E | E*E | (E) | id T → T*F | F
F → (E) | id 25
 Sets of LR(0) Items for Ambiguous Grammar
.E
I0: E’ →
E
I1: E’ → E. +
I4: E → E + E. E
I7: E → E+E .
+ I
4
E→ .E+E .
E → E +E .
E → E+E
(
.
E → E +E
*
I5
E→ .E*E .
E → E *E * E → .E*E id
I2
.
E → E *E
E→ .(E) .
E → (E)
I3

E→ .id ( .
E → id
(
.
I5: E → E * E E
.
+ I
I2: E → ( .E) .
E → E+E
(
I2
I8: E → E*E
. *
4

E→ .E+E .
E → E*E
id
I3
E → E +E I5
.
E→ .E*E E .
E → (E)
E → E *E

id E→ .(E) id .
E → id
E→ .id .
I6: E → (E )
)
I9: E → (E) .
I : E → id.
.
E → E +E
+
* I4
3 .
E → E *E
I5

26
SLR-Parsing Tables for Ambiguous Grammar
FOLLOW(E) = { $,+,*,) }

State I7 has shift/reduce conflicts for symbols + and *.

I0 E I1 + I4 E I7

when current token is +

shift + is right-associative
reduce + is left-associative

when current token is *

shift * has higher precedence than +
reduce + has higher precedence than *

27
SLR-Parsing Tables for Ambiguous Grammar
FOLLOW(E) = { $,+,*,) }

State I8 has shift/reduce conflicts for symbols + and *.

I0 E I1 * I5 E I7

when current token is *

shift * is right-associative
reduce * is left-associative

when current token is +

shift + has higher precedence than *
reduce * has higher precedence than +

28
SLR-Parsing Tables for Ambiguous Grammar
Action Goto

id + * ( ) $ E
0 s3 s2 1
1 s4 s5 acc
2 s3 s2 6
3 r4 r4 r4 r4
4 s3 s2 7
5 s3 s2 8
6 s4 s5 s9
7 r1 s5 r1 r1
8 r2 r2 r2 r2
9 r3 r3 r3 r3
29
The End

30