CS143 Handout11

Summer2012 July9st,2012
SLRandLR(1)Parsing
HandoutwrittenbyMaggieJohnsonandrevisedbyJulieZelenski.

LR(0)IsntGoodEnough
LR(0)isthesimplesttechniqueintheLRfamily.Althoughthatmakesittheeasiestto
learn,theseparsersaretooweaktobeofpracticaluseforanythingbutaverylimitedset
ofgrammars.TheexamplesgivenattheendoftheLR(0)handoutshowhowevensmall
additionstoanLR(0)grammarcanintroduceconflictsthatmakeitnolongerLR(0).The
fundamentallimitationofLR(0)isthezero,meaningnolookaheadtokensareused.Itis
astiflingconstrainttohavetomakedecisionsusingonlywhathasalreadybeenread,
withoutevenglancingatwhatcomesnextintheinput.Ifwecouldpeekatthenext
tokenandusethataspartofthedecisionmaking,wewillfindthatitallowsforamuch
largerclassofgrammarstobeparsed.

SLR(1)
WewillfirstconsiderSLR(1)wheretheSstandsforsimple.SLR(1)parsersusethe
sameLR(0)configuratingsetsandhavethesametablestructureandparseroperation,
soeverythingyou'vealreadylearnedaboutLR(0)applieshere.Thedifferencecomesin
assigningtableactions,wherewearegoingtouseonetokenoflookaheadtohelp
arbitrateamongtheconflicts.Ifwethinkbacktothekindofconflictsweencounteredin
LR(0)parsing,itwasthereduceactionsthatcauseusgrief.AstateinanLR(0)parser
canhaveatmostonereduceactionandcannothavebothshiftandreduceinstructions.
Sinceareduceisindicatedforanycompleteditem,thisdictatesthateachcompleted
itemmustbeinastatebyitself.Butlet'srevisittheassumptionthatiftheitemis
complete,theparsermustchoosetoreduce.Isthatalwaysappropriate?Ifwepeekedat
thenextupcomingtoken,itmaytellussomethingthatinvalidatesthatreduction.Ifthe
sequenceontopofthestackcouldbereducedtothenonterminalA,whattokensdowe
expecttofindasthenextinput?Whattokenswouldtellusthatthereductionisnot
appropriate?PerhapsFollow(A)couldbeusefulhere!

ThesimpleimprovementthatSLR(1)makesonthebasicLR(0)parseristoreduceonlyif
thenextinputtokenisamemberofthefollowsetofthenonterminalbeingreduced.
Whenfillinginthetable,wedon'tassumeareduceonallinputsaswedidinLR(0),we
selectivelychoosethereductiononlywhenthenextinputsymbolsinamemberofthe
followset.Tobemoreprecise,hereisthealgorithmforSLR(1)tableconstruction(note
allstepsarethesameasforLR(0)tableconstructionexceptfor2a)
 1. ConstructF = {I0, I1, ...In},thecollectionofLR(0)configuratingsetsforG'.
2. StateiisdeterminedfromIi.Theparsingactionsforthestatearedeterminedas
follows:
a) IfA > uisin IithensetAction[i,a]toreduceA > uforallainFollow(A)(Ais
notS').
b) IfS' > SisinIithensetAction[i,$]toaccept.
c) IfA > uavisinIiandsuccessor(Ii, a)=Ij,thensetAction[i,a]toshiftj(a
mustbeaterminal).
3. ThegototransitionsforstateiareconstructedforallnonterminalsAusingthe
rule:Ifsuccessor(Ii,A) =Ij,thenGoto [i, A] = j.
4. Allentriesnotdefinedbyrules2and3areerrors.
5. Theinitialstateistheoneconstructedfromtheconfiguratingsetcontaining
S' > S.

IntheSLR(1)parser,itisallowablefortheretobebothshiftandreduceitemsinthe
samestateaswellasmultiplereduceitems.TheSLR(1)parserwillbeabletodetermine
whichactiontotakeaslongasthefollowsetsaredisjoint.

Let'sconsiderthosechangesattheendoftheLR(0)handouttothesimplifiedexpression
grammarthatwouldhavemadeitnolongerLR(0).Hereistheversionwiththeaddition
ofarrayaccess:

E' > E
E > E + T | T
T > (E) | id | id[E]

HerearethefirsttwoLR(0)configuratingsetsenteredifidisthefirsttokenoftheinput.
E' -> E
E -> E + T T -> id
id
E -> T T -> id[E]
T -> (E)
T -> id
T -> id[E]

InanLR(0)parser,thesetontherighthasashiftreduceconflict.However,anSLR(1)
willcomputeFollow(T) = { + ) ] $ }andonlyenterthereduceactiononthosetokens.The
input[willshiftandthereisnoconflict.ThusthisgrammarisSLR(1)eventhoughitis
notLR(0).

Similarly,thesimplifiedexpressiongrammarwiththeassignmentaddition:
 E' > E
E > E + T | T | V = E
T > (E) | id
V > id

HerearethefirsttwoLR(0)configuratingsetsenteredifidisthefirsttokenoftheinput.
E' -> E
E -> E + T T -> id
id
E -> T V -> id
E -> V = E
T -> (E)
T -> id
V -> id

InanLR(0)parser,thesetontherighthasareducereduceconflict.However,anSLR(1)
parserwillcomputeFollow(T) = { + ) $ }andFollow(V) = { = }andthuscandistinguish
whichreductiontoapplydependingonthenextinputtoken.Themodifiedgrammaris
SLR(1).

SLR(1)Grammars
AgrammarisSLR(1)ifthefollowingtwoconditionsholdforeachconfiguratingset:
1. ForanyitemA >uxvintheset,withterminalx,thereisnocompleteitemB >
winthatsetwithxinFollow(B).Inthetables,thistranslatesnoshiftreduce
conflictonanystate.Thismeansthesuccessorfunctionforxfromthatseteither
shiftstoanewstateorreduces,butnotboth.
2. ForanytwocompleteitemsA > uandB > vintheset,thefollowsetsmust
bedisjoint,e.g.Follow(A)Follow(B)isempty.Thistranslatestonoreducereduce
conflictonanystate.Ifmorethanonenonterminalcouldbereducedfromthisset,
itmustbepossibletouniquelydeterminewhichusingonlyonetokenof
lookahead.

AllLR(0)grammarsareSLR(1)butthereverseisnottrue,asthetwoextensionstoour
expressiongrammardemonstrated.Theadditionofjustonetokenoflookaheadanduse
ofthefollowsetgreatlyexpandstheclassofgrammarsthatcanbeparsedwithout
conflict.

SLR(1)Limitations
TheSLR(1)techniquestillleavessomethingtobedesired,becausewearenotusingall
theinformationthatwehaveatourdisposal.Whenwehaveacompletedconfiguration
(i.e.,dotattheend)suchasX > u,weknowthatthiscorrespondstoasituationin
whichwehaveuasahandleontopofthestackwhichwethencanreduce,i.e.,replacing
ubyX.WeallowsuchareductionwheneverthenextsymbolisinFollow(X).However,it
maybethatweshouldnotreduceforeverysymbolinFollow(X),becausethesymbols
belowuonthestackprecludeubeingahandleforreductioninthiscase.Inother
words,SLR(1)statesonlytellusaboutthesequenceontopofthestack,notwhatis
belowitonthestack.WemayneedtodivideanSLR(1)stateintoseparatestatesto
differentiatethepossiblemeansbywhichthatsequencehasappearedonthestack.By
carryingmoreinformationinthestate,itwillallowustoruleouttheseinvalid
reductions.ConsiderthisexamplefromAho/Sethi/Ullmanthatdefinesasmallgrammar
forassignmentstatements,usingthenonterminalLforlvalueandRforrvalueand*
forcontentsof.

S' > S
S > L = R
S > R
L > *R
L > id
R > L

I0: S' > S I5: L > id

S > L = R
S > R I6: S > L =R
L > *R R > L
L > id L > *R
R > L L > id

I1: S' > S I7: L > *R

I2: S > L = R I8: R > L

R > L
I9: S > L = R
I3: S > R

I4: L > *R
R > L
L > *R
L > id

Considerparsingtheexpressionid = id.AfterworkingourwaytoconfiguratingsetI2
havingreducedthefirstid toL,wehaveachoiceuponseeing=comingupintheinput.
ThefirstiteminthesetwantstosetAction[2,=]beshift6,whichcorrespondstomoving
ontofindtherestoftheassignment.However,=isalsoinFollow(R)becauseS => L=R
=> *R = R.Thus,thesecondconfigurationwantstoreduceinthatslotR>L.Thisisa
shiftreduceconflictbutnotbecauseofanyproblemwiththegrammar.ASLRparser
doesnotrememberenoughleftcontexttodecidewhatshouldhappenwhenit
encountersa=intheinputhavingseenastringreducibletoL.Althoughthesequence
ontopofthestackcouldbereducedtoR,wedontwanttochoosethisreduction
becausethereisnopossiblerightsententialformthatbeginsR = ...(thereisone
beginning*R = ...whichisnotthesame).Thus,thecorrectchoiceistoshift.

ItsnotfurtherlookaheadthattheSLRtablesaremissingwedontneedtosee
additionalsymbolsbeyondthefirsttokenintheinput,wehavealreadyseenthe
informationthatallowsustodeterminethecorrectchoice.Whatweneedistoretaina
littlemoreoftheleftcontextthatbroughtushere.Inthisexamplegrammar,theonly
timeweshouldconsiderreducingbyproductionR>L isduringaderivationthathas
alreadyseena*oran=.Justusingtheentirefollowsetisnotdiscriminatingenoughas
theguideforwhentoreduce.Thefollowsetcontainssymbolsthatcanfollow Rinany
positionwithinavalidsentencebutitdoesnotpreciselyindicatewhichsymbolsfollow
Ratthisparticularpointinaderivation.Sowewillaugmentourstatestoinclude
informationaboutwhatportionofthefollowsetisappropriategiventhepathwehave
takentothatstate.

Wecanbeinstate2foroneoftworeasons,wearetryingtobuildfromS > L = R or
fromS > R > L. Iftheupcomingsymbolis=,thenthatrulesoutthesecondchoiceand
wemustbebuildingthefirst,whichtellsustoshift.Thereductionshouldonlybe
appliedifthenextinputsymbolis$.Eventhough=isFollow(R)becauseoftheother
contextsthatanRcanappear,inthisparticularsituation,itisnotappropriatebecause
whenderivingasentenceS > R > L,=cannotfollowR.

ConstructingLR(1)parsingtables
LRorcanonicalLRparsingincorporatestherequiredextrainformationintothestateby
redefiningconfigurationstoincludeaterminalsymbolasanaddedcomponent.LR(1)
configurationshavethegeneralform:

A > X1...Xi Xi+1...Xj , a

ThismeanswehavestatescorrespondingtoX1...Xi onthestackandwearelookingto
putstatescorrespondingtoXi+1...Xj onthestackandthenreduce,butonlyifthetoken
followingXj istheterminala.aiscalledthelookaheadoftheconfiguration.The
lookaheadonlycomesintoplaywithLR(1)configurationswithadotattherightend:

A > X1Xj , a

ThismeanswehavestatescorrespondingtoX1...Xjonthestackbutwemayonlyreduce
whenthenextsymbolisa.Thesymbolaiseitheraterminalor$(endofinputmarker).
WithSLR(1)parsing,wewouldreduceifthenexttokenwasanyofthoseinFollow(A).
WithLR(1)parsing,wereduceonlyifthenexttokenisexactly a.Wemayhavemore
thanonesymbolinthelookaheadfortheconfiguration,asaconvenience,welistthose
symbolsseparatedbyaforwardslash.Thus,theconfigurationA > u, a/b/csaysthatit
isvalidtoreduceutoAonlyifthenexttokenisequaltoa,b,orc.Theconfiguration
lookaheadwillalwaysbeasubsetofFollow(A).

Recallthedefinitionofaviableprefixfromtheprevioushandout.Viableprefixesare
thoseprefixesofrightsententialformsthatcanappearonthestackofashiftreduce
parser.Formallywesaythataconfiguration[A > uv, a] isvalidforaviableprefixif
thereisarightmostderivationS =>* Aw =>* uvwwhere=uandeitheraisthefirst
symbolofworwisandais$.

Forexample:

S > ZZ
Z > xZ | y

ThereisarightmostderivationS =>* xxZxy => xxxZxy.Weseethatconfiguration

[Z > xZ, x] isvalidforviableprefix=xxxbyletting=xx,A=Z,w=xy,u=xand
v=Z.AnotherexampleisfromtherightmostderivationS =>* ZxZ => ZxxZ,making
[Z > xZ, $] validforviableprefixZxx.

OftenwehaveanumberofLR(1)configurationsthatdifferonlyintheirlookahead
components.TheadditionofalookaheadcomponenttoLR(1)configurationsallowsus
tomakeparsingdecisionsbeyondthecapabilityofSLR(1)parsers.Thereis,however,a
bigpricetobepaid.Therewillbemoredistinctconfigurationsandthusmanymore
possibleconfiguratingsets.Thisincreasesthesizeofthegotoandactiontables
considerably.Inthepastwhenmemorywassmaller,itwasdifficulttofindstorage
efficientwaysofrepresentingthesetables,butnowthisisnotasmuchofanissue.Still,
itsabigjobbuildingLRtablesforanysubstantialgrammarbyhand.

ThemethodforconstructingtheconfiguratingsetsofLR(1)configurationsisessentially
thesameasforSLR,buttherearesomechangesintheclosureandsuccessoroperations
becausewemustrespecttheconfigurationlookahead.Tocomputetheclosureofan
LR(1)configuratingsetI:

RepeatthefollowinguntilnomoreconfigurationscanbeaddedtostateI:
Foreachconfiguration[A > uBv, a]inI,foreachproductionB > winG',andfor
eachterminalbinFirst(va)suchthat[B > w, b]isnotinI:add[B > w, b]toI.

Whatdoesthismean?Wehaveaconfigurationwiththedotbeforethenonterminal B.
InLR(0),wecomputedtheclosurebyaddingallBproductionswithnoindicationof
whatwasexpectedtofollowthem.InLR(1),wearealittlemorepreciseweaddeachB
productionbutinsistthateachhavealookaheadofva.ThelookaheadwillbeFirst(va)
sincethisiswhatfollowsB inthisproduction.Rememberthatwecancomputefirstsets
notjustforasinglenonterminal,butalsoasequenceofterminalandnonterminals.
First(va)includesthefirstsetofthefirstsymbolofvandthenifthatsymbolisnullable,
weincludethefirstsetofthefollowingsymbol,andsoon.Iftheentiresequence vis
nullable,weaddthelookaheadaalreadyrequiredbythisconfiguration.

ThesuccessorfunctionfortheconfiguratingsetIandsymbolXiscomputedasthis:

LetJbetheconfiguratingset[A > uXv, a] suchthat[A > uXv, a] isinI.

successor(I,X)istheclosureofconfiguratingsetJ.

Wetakeeachproductioninaconfiguratingset,movethedotoverasymbolandcloseon
theresultingproduction.Thisisbasicallythesamesuccessorfunctionasdefinedfor
LR(0),butwehavetopropagatethelookaheadwhencomputingthetransitions.
WeconstructthecompletefamilyofallconfiguratingsetsFjustaswedidbefore.Fis
initializedtothesetwiththeclosureof[S' > S, $].ForeachconfiguratingsetIandeach
grammarsymbolXsuchthatsuccessor(I,X)isnotemptyandnotinF,addsuccessor (I,X)
toFuntilnootherconfiguratingsetcanbeaddedtoF.

Letsconsideranexample.Theaugmentedgrammarbelowthatrecognizestheregular
languagea*ba*b(thisexamplefrompp.231236Aho/Sethi/Ullman).

0) S' > S
1) S > XX
2) X > aX
3) X > b

HereisthefamilyofLRconfigurationsets:
 I0: S' > S, $ I4: X > b, a/b
S > XX, $
X > aX, a/b I5: S > XX, $
X > b, a/b
I6: X > aX, $
I1: S' > S, $ X > aX, $
X > b, $
I2: S > XX, $
X > aX, $ I7: X > b, $
X > b, $
I8: X > aX, a/b
I3: X > aX, a/b
X > aX, a/b I9: X > aX, $
X > b, a/b

TheabovegrammarwouldonlyhavesevenSLRstates,buthastenincanonicalLR.We
endupwithadditionalstatesbecausewehavesplitstatesthathavedifferent
lookaheads.Forexample,states3and6arethesameexceptforlookahead,state3
correspondstothecontextwhereweareinthemiddleofparsingthefirstX,state6isthe
secondX.Similarly,states4and7arecompletingthefirstandsecondXrespectively.In
SLR,thosestatesarenotdistinguished,andifwewereattemptingtoparseasingle bby
itself,wewouldallowthattobereducedtoX,eventhoughthiswillnotleadtoavalid
sentence.TheSLRparserwilleventuallynoticethesyntaxerror,too,buttheLRparser
figuresitoutabitsooner.

Tofillintheentriesintheactionandgototables,weuseasimilaralgorithmaswedid
forSLR(1),butinsteadofassigningreduceactionsusingthefollowset,weusethe
specificlookaheads.HerearethestepstobuildanLR(1)parsetable:

1. ConstructF = {I0, I1, ...In},thecollectionofconfiguratingsetsfortheaugmented

grammarG'(augmentedbyaddingthespecialproductionS' > S).
2. StateiisdeterminedfromIi.Theparsingactionsforthestatearedeterminedas
follows:
a) If[A > u, a]isin IithensetAction[i,a]toreduceA > u(AisnotS').
b) If[S' > S, $]isinIithensetAction[i,$]toaccept.
c) If[A > uav, b]isinIiandsucc(Ii, a)=Ij,thensetAction[i,a]toshiftj(amustbe
aterminal).
3. ThegototransitionsforstateiareconstructedforallnonterminalsAusingthe
rule:Ifsucc(Ii,A) =Ij,thenGoto [i, A] = j.
4. Allentriesnotdefinedbyrules2and3areerrors.
Theinitialstateistheoneconstructedfromtheconfiguratingsetcontaining S' > S.
Followingthealgorithmusingtheconfiguratingsetsgivenabove,weconstructthis
canonicalLRparsetable:
Stateon Action Goto
topof a b $ S X
stack
0 s3 s4 1 2
1 acc
2 s6 s7 5
3 s3 s4 8
4 r3 r3
5 r1
6 s6 s7 9
7 r3
8 r2 r2
9 r2
Letsparseanexamplestringbaab.Itisavalidsentenceinthislanguageasshownby
thisleftmostderivation:

S > XX
bX
baX
baaX
baab

STACK REMAINING PARSER

STACK INPUT ACTION
S0 baab$ ShiftS4
S0S4 aab$ Reduce3) X > b,goto S2
S0S2 aab$ ShiftS6
S0S2S6 ab$ ShiftS6
S0S2S6S6 b$ Shift S7
S0S2S6S6S7 $ Reduce3) X > b,goto S9
S0S2S6S6S9 $ Reduce2) X > aX,goto S9
S0S2S6S9 $ Reduce2) X > aX,goto S5
S0S2S5 $ Reduce1) S > XX,goto S1
S0S1 $ Accept

Now,letsconsiderwhatthestatesmean.S4iswhereX > biscompleted;S2andS6is

whereweareinthemiddleofprocessingthe2a's;S7iswhereweprocessthefinalb;S9
iswherewecompletetheX > aXproduction;S5iswherewecompleteS > XX;andS1is
whereweaccept.
LR(1)grammars
EverySLR(1)grammarisacanonicalLR(1)grammar,butthecanonicalLR(1)parsermay
havemorestatesthantheSLR(1)parser.AnLR(1)grammarisnotnecessarilySLR(1),
thegrammargivenearlierisanexample.BecauseanLR(1)parsersplitsstatesbasedon
differinglookaheads,itmayavoidconflictsthatwouldotherwiseresultifusingthefull
followset.

AgrammarisLR(1)ifthefollowingtwoconditionsaresatisfiedforeachconfigurating
set:

1. Foranyitemintheset[A > uxv, a]withxaterminal,thereisnoiteminthesetof

theform[B > v, x].Intheactiontable,thistranslatesnoshiftreduceconflictfor
anystate.Thesuccessorfunctionforxeithershiftstoanewstateorreduces,but
notboth.
2. Thelookaheadsforallcompleteitemswithinthesetmustbedisjoint,e.g.set
cannothaveboth[A > u, a] and[B > v, a]Thistranslatestonoreducereduce
conflictonanystate.Ifmorethanonenonterminalcouldbereducedfromthis
set,itmustbepossibletouniquelydeterminewhichisappropriatefromthenext
inputtoken.

Aslongasthereisauniqueshiftorreduceactiononeachinputsymbolfromeachstate,
wecanparseusinganLR(1)algorithm.Theabovestateconditionsaresimilartowhatis
requiredforSLR(1),butratherthanthelooserconstraintaboutdisjointfollowsetsand
soon,canonicalLR(1)computesamoreprecisenotionoftheappropriatelookahead
withinaparticularcontextandthusisabletoresolveconflictsthatSLR(1)would
encounter.

Bibliography
A. Aho, R. Sethi, J. Ullman, Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley, 1986.
J.P. Bennett, Introduction to Compiling Techniques. Berkshire, England: McGraw-Hill, 1990.
K. Loudon, Compiler Construction. Boston, MA: PWS, 1997
A. Pyster, Compiler Design and Construction. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1988.