Скачать или смотреть Understanding Shift/Reduce Conflicts in Bison

Discover how to resolve `shift/reduce conflicts` in Bison with practical examples and clear solutions. Learn the methods to avoid common pitfalls in grammar definitions.
---
This video is based on the question https://stackoverflow.com/q/69944866/ asked by the user 'Riomare' ( https://stackoverflow.com/u/14591686/ ) and on the answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/69947894/ provided by the user 'rici' ( https://stackoverflow.com/u/1566221/ ) at 'Stack Overflow' website. Thanks to these great users and Stackexchange community for their contributions.

Visit these links for original content and any more details, such as alternate solutions, latest updates/developments on topic, comments, revision history etc. For example, the original title of the Question was: Nested Shift/reduce conflict in bison?

Also, Content (except music) licensed under CC BY-SA https://meta.stackexchange.com/help/l...
The original Question post is licensed under the 'CC BY-SA 4.0' ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/... ) license, and the original Answer post is licensed under the 'CC BY-SA 4.0' ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/... ) license.

If anything seems off to you, please feel free to write me at vlogize [AT] gmail [DOT] com.
---
Understanding Shift/Reduce Conflicts in Bison: A Comprehensive Guide

In the realm of compiler construction, particularly when using tools like Bison, encountering shift/reduce conflicts can be a perplexing issue for many developers, especially those new to parser generation. A shift/reduce conflict occurs when the parser cannot decide whether to shift (read more input) or to reduce (apply a grammar rule). This often arises with ambiguous grammar rules that contain optional parts.

In this guide, we’ll dive deep into understanding shift/reduce conflicts, particularly focusing on the context of Bison grammar rules. We will also provide a structured approach to resolving these conflicts efficiently.

What is a Shift/Reduce Conflict?

Definition

A shift/reduce conflict arises when the parser encounters a situation where it can either:

Shift: Read the next token and continue parsing.

Reduce: Apply a grammar rule to replace symbols on the parse stack with the non-terminal defined by that rule.

This confusion typically stems from ambiguous grammar definitions that allow for multiple interpretations based on the current input.

Example Scenario

Consider this situation in your grammar:

[[See Video to Reveal this Text or Code Snippet]]

When the parser sees a token like "(", it has multiple production rules available leading to the conflict:

It can either shift and interpret it as part of direct_declarator.

Or it can reduce it based on the abstract_declarator.

Understanding the Problem

In your particular case, you received two shift/reduce conflicts, specifically:

[[See Video to Reveal this Text or Code Snippet]]

Analyzing the Conflicts

The parser sees two possible paths when it encounters "(":

Continue as part of direct_declarator.

Reduce to direct_abstract_declarator_opt, which might not provide a clear direction for subsequent tokens.

This inability to decide which path to take results in the conflicts that make parsing ambiguous and fail.

Resolving the Conflict: Best Practices

Step 1: Avoiding Optional Non-Terminals

A common source of shift/reduce conflicts is optional non-terminals. In your scenario, you defined:

[[See Video to Reveal this Text or Code Snippet]]

This can make it challenging for the parser to decide when to shift or reduce. Instead of using an optional notation, consider duplicating productions. This provides a clearer structure for the parser.

Step 2: Duplicating Productions

Here’s how you can simplify your definitions:

Remove the optional definition. Instead of having an optional variant, define clear, separate productions for each case:

[[See Video to Reveal this Text or Code Snippet]]

Step 3: Testing and Iteration

Always conduct tests after making modifications to ensure that the conflict is resolved and that the parser correctly interprets all valid inputs. This step can often reveal additional inconsistencies or unforeseen conflicts.

Conclusion

Shift/reduce conflicts can be a challenging hurdle in Bison grammar definitions, but by employing the techniques we've discussed, particularly avoiding optional non-terminals through production duplication, you can build more robust and clearer grammars. This practice will enhance both readability and maintenance, facilitating smoother parser generation and a better understanding of the input language's structure.

Feel free to reach out with your own experiences or questions about Bison's shift/reduce conflicts, and let’s solve them together!