<program> ::= <stmt_list>
<stmt_list> ::= <stmt> | <stmt> <stmt_list>
<stmt> ::= <declaration_stmt> | <assign_stmt>
<declaration_stmt> ::= int <ident_list> ;
<ident_list> ::= <var_id> | <var_id> , <ident_list>
<var_id> ::= x | y | z
<assign_stmt> ::= <var_id> = <expression> ;
<expression> ::= <expression> + <expression>
| <expression> * <expression>
| <constant> | <var_id>
<constant> ::= 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
a) Drive the string "int x, y; x = x + 5 * y;",
using the leftmost derivation to show that it is in the language.
b) Show its parse tree.
c) Is the grammar ambiguous or not?
Answer:
a) The rightmost derivation:
<program> ⇒ <stmt_list>
⇒ <stmt> <stmt_list>
⇒ <declaration_stmt> <stmt_list>
⇒ int <ident_list> ; <stmt_list>
⇒ int <var_id> , <ident_list> ; <stmt_list>
⇒ int x , <ident_list> ; <stmt_list>
⇒ int x , <var_id> ; <stmt_list>
⇒ int x , y ; <stmt_list>
⇒ int x , y ; <stmt>
⇒ int x , y ; <assign_stmt>
⇒ int x , y ; <var_id> = <expression> ;
⇒ int x , y ; x = <expression> ;
⇒ int x , y ; x = <expression + <expression> ;
⇒ int x , y ; x = <var_id> + <expression> ;
⇒ int x , y ; x = x + <expression> ;
⇒ int x , y ; x = x + <expression> * <expression> ;
⇒ int x , y ; x = x + <constant> * <expression> ;
⇒ int x , y ; x = x + 5 * <expression>;
⇒ int x , y ; x = x + 5 * <var_id>;
⇒ int x , y ; x = x + 5 * y; ✓
21 sentential forms.
b) A parse tree

c) It is ambiguous,
becuase instead of <expression> ::= <expression> + <expression> rule,
<expression> ::= <expression> * <expression> could be chosen, leading to a different parse tree.
<program> ::= <stmt_list>
<stmt_list> ::= <stmt> | <stmt> <stmt_list>
<stmt> ::= <declaration_stmt> | <assign_stmt>
<declaration_stmt> ::= int <ident_list> ;
<ident_list> ::= <var_id> | <var_id> , <ident_list>
<var_id> ::= x | y | z
<assign_stmt> ::= <var_id> = <expr> ;
<expression> ::= <expr> + <expr>
| <expr> * <expr>
| <constant> | <var_id>
<constant> ::= 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
Answer:
<program> ::= <stmt_list>
<stmt_list> ::= <stmt> | <stmt> <stmt_list>
<stmt> ::= <declaration_stmt> | <assign_stmt>
<declaration_stmt> ::= int <ident_list> ;
<ident_list> ::= <var_id> | <var_id> , <ident_list>
<var_id> ::= x | y | z
<assign_stmt> ::= <var_id> = <expr_0> ;
<expr_0> ::= <expr_0> + <expr_1>
| <expr_1>
<expr_1> ::= <expr_1> + <expr_2>
| <expr_2>
<expr_2> ::= <constant> | <var_id>
<constant> ::= 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
[FLOAT:val], similarly,
a lexeme representing an integer value will be replaced by
[INT:val];
where val; is the numeric value of the lexeme.
Other characters should be echoed back to the screen.
For example, if the input is ab007cd00.750ef-012gh-003.450ijthe output will be
ab[INT:7]cd[FLOAT:0.75]ef[INT:-12]gh[FLOAT:-3.45]ij
Answer:
%option main
digit [0-9]
sign [+-]
%%
{sign}?{digit}+ { int int_value;
sscanf (yytext, "%d", &int_value);
printf("[INT:%d]", int_value);
}
{sign}?{digit}+\.{digit}+ { float float_value;
sscanf (yytext, "%f", &float_value);
printf("[FLOAT:%g]", float_value);
}
a)
%token ID PLUS
%%
expr : expr PLUS expr
| ID
;
%%b)
Answer:
a) L= {ID (PLUS ID)*}= {ID, ID PLUS ID, ID PLUS ID PLUS ID, ...}
The grammar is ambiguous, since ID PLUS ID PLUS ID has two parse trees corresponding to
ID PLUS (ID PLUS ID) and (ID PLUS ID) PLUS ID.
Conflict analysis:
$accept : ↑ expr $end.
The pointer moves to the expr rules.
expr: ↑ expr PLUS expr
expr: ↑ ID (*)
If the next token is ID, the second rule (*) reduces.
$accept : expr ↑ $end
expr: expr ↑ PLUS expr
If the next token is PLUS, the pointer shifts.
expr: expr PLUS ↑ expr
The pointer moves to the expr rules.
expr: expr PLUS expr
expr: ↑ expr PLUS expr
expr: ↑ ID (*)
If the next token is ID, the third rule (*) reduces
expr: expr PLUS expr ↑
expr: expr ↑ PLUS expr
There is a Shift / Reduse conflict on PLUS as
expr : expr PLUS expr ↑ (Reduce)
expr : expr ↑ PLUS expr (Shift)
b) L= {ID (PLUS ID | TIMES ID)*} = {ID PLUS ID, ID PLUS ID PLUS ID, ID TIMES ID...}
The grammar is unambiguous.
There is no conflct.