[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Forcing multiple parse stacks to 'reduce'
From: |
Hans Aberg |
Subject: |
Re: Forcing multiple parse stacks to 'reduce' |
Date: |
Tue, 01 Mar 2005 20:02:40 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.0.6 |
At 15:38 +0000 2005/03/01, Derek M Jones wrote:
>I suddenly realised that the token sequence:
>
>typedef x y;
>typedef i j;
>{
>
>is a syntactically valid function definition.
So it seems, but I have not been able to figure out which function. :-) The
problem is that C has some grammar difficulties.
>Bison is correct not to perform the reductions I was
>expecting. Until a {, or EOF, is seen it does not it does not
>know whether it is dealing with a function definition or a
>list of declarations.
I have some vague memory that somebody found (fairly late, in the 90'ies) a
grammar transformation to make C becoming LALR(1) (modulo the usual context
tweaks for "typedef", etc.) Then you would not need using the %glr option.
You might check the newsgroup comp.compilers and its FAQ, published there
monthly.
Hans Aberg
- Re: Forcing multiple parse stacks to 'reduce', Laurence Finston, 2005/03/01
- Re: Forcing multiple parse stacks to 'reduce', Derek M Jones, 2005/03/01
- Re: Forcing multiple parse stacks to 'reduce', Hans Aberg, 2005/03/01
- Re: Forcing multiple parse stacks to 'reduce',
Hans Aberg <=
- Re: Forcing multiple parse stacks to 'reduce', Derek M Jones, 2005/03/02
- Re: x + (y) + z, Frank Heckenbach, 2005/03/03
- Re: x + (y) + z, Derek M Jones, 2005/03/04
- Re: x + (y) + z, Frank Heckenbach, 2005/03/04
- Message not available
- Re: x + (y) + z, Frank Heckenbach, 2005/03/06
- Re: x + (y) + z, Derek M Jones, 2005/03/06