Open mingodad opened 1 year ago
The translation of these precedences https://github.com/diku-dk/futhark/blob/aaf9939c6955abf2b55ff0b1f3e07f445ea2b537/src/Language/Futhark/Parser/Parser.y#L165-L186 to bison seems to be written at
@mingodad What would be an example that parses wrongly with the happy
-generated parser because happy
misses conflicts?
And what would be the LR state that should display a conflict? (For LR state description see e.g. the happy
-generated .info
file.)
The happy grammar has this:
%right '...' '..'
%left juxtprec
RangeExp
: Exp2 '...' Exp2
| Exp2 '..' Exp2 '...' Exp2
Exp2
| RangeExp
| Exp2 '..' Atom
| Atom '..' Exp2
| ApplyList
ApplyList
: Atom ApplyList %prec juxtprec
| Atom %prec juxtprec
The bison grammar has the same:
%right "..." ".."
%left juxtprec
RangeExp : Exp2 "..." Exp2 ;
RangeExp : Exp2 ".." Exp2 "..." Exp2 ;
Exp2 : RangeExp ;
Exp2 : Exp2 ".." Atom ;
Exp2 : Atom ".." Exp2 ;
Exp2 : ApplyList ;
ApplyList : Atom ApplyList %prec juxtprec ;
ApplyList : Atom %prec juxtprec ;
The counterexample given by bison
is:
$ bison -Wcounterexamples --report=cex Parser-yacc.y
Parser-yacc.y: warning: 35 reduce/reduce conflicts [-Wconflicts-rr]
Parser-yacc.y: warning: reduce/reduce conflict on tokens "...", ...
Example: Exp2 ".." Atom • "..." Exp2
First reduce derivation
RangeExp
↳ 274: Exp2 "..." Exp2
↳ 170: Exp2 ".." Atom •
Second reduce derivation
RangeExp
↳ 277: Exp2 ".." Exp2 "..." Exp2
↳ 178: ApplyList
↳ 180: Atom •
Parser-yacc.y:209.8-21: warning: rule useless in parser due to conflicts [-Wother]
209 | Exp2 : Atom ".." Exp2 ;
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So bison
claims here that Atom -> ApplyList -> Exp2
is a valid reduction even if the next token is "..."
which has a higher precedence ("..."
) than the rule ApplyList: Atom
(juxtprec
).
According to happy
s spec, this is not a valid reduction, see https://haskell-happy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/using.html#how-precedence-works . So, from the perspective of happy
, there is no conflict.
@mingodad Can you argue that a conflict actually exists? Or how should we proceed with this issue?
The documentation https://haskell-happy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/using.html#how-precedence-works clearly talk about shift/reduce
but not about reduce/reduce
.
I'm still making my head around this issue like in the lemon
parser as well https://sqlite.org/forum/forumpost/9cb2fc0e6e11768c .
The main issue is applying precedence to mask/hide/resolve reduce/reduce
conflicts intentional or unintentional, I mean we can add precedence to solve shift/reduce
conflicts but it also can hide as solved reduce/reduce
conflicts in other places without letting us now about then.
For example the sqlite3 grammar splitting expr
in expr/expr2
seems to fix the reduce/reduce
conflict (still in testing) like PostgreSQL
does (also CG-SQL) see https://mingodad.github.io/parsertl-playground/playground/ in examples SQLite3 parser (partially working)
and SQLite3 modified parser (partially working)
.
I'm still working on it and as soon I found an answer I'll tell you.
I hadn't considered the possibly that bison doesn't use precedence at all for the reduce/reduce case. In this case it seems that one of the choices would immediately lead to a syntax error and happy figures that out. I think Bison doesn't have enough lookahead to see that it will be in a corner...
The best I could find is https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/2.1.0?topic=ambiguities-rules-help-remove
"Precedence is not consulted in reduce-reduce conflicts. yacc always reduces by the earliest grammar rule, regardless of precedence"
I wasn't sure if this also applied to bison, which is why I resorted to looking at the bison source code.
While converting this grammar https://github.com/diku-dk/futhark/blob/master/src/Language/Futhark/Parser/Parser.y to use in https://mingodad.github.io/parsertl-playground/playground/ I found that bison/yacc/kmyacc reports 35 reduce/reduce conflicts but
happy
none.Attached is the grammar converted using
happy
-i
command line to get the expanded grammar and adding the missing parts manually (%tokens
,%prec
, ...):grammars.zip