Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    Mid1 Soln spr11

    Uploaded by

    andrew
    This document provides solutions to a midterm exam for a compiler construction course. It discusses topics like bottom-up versus top-down parsing, LR parsing, LL(1) parsing, shift-reduce parsing, LR(1) item sets and parse tables, and differences between LR(1), SLR(1), and LALR(1) parsers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Mid1 Soln spr11

    Uploaded by

    andrew
    52 views3 pages
    This document provides solutions to a midterm exam for a compiler construction course. It discusses topics like bottom-up versus top-down parsing, LR parsing, LL(1) parsing, shift-reduce parsing, LR(1) item sets and parse tables, and differences between LR(1), SLR(1), and LALR(1) parsers.

    Original Description:

    mids

    Original Title

    mid1-soln-spr11

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document provides solutions to a midterm exam for a compiler construction course. It discusses topics like bottom-up versus top-down parsing, LR parsing, LL(1) parsing, shift-reduce parsing, LR(1) item sets and parse tables, and differences between LR(1), SLR(1), and LALR(1) parsers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    52 views3 pages

    Mid1 Soln spr11

    Uploaded by

    andrew
    This document provides solutions to a midterm exam for a compiler construction course. It discusses topics like bottom-up versus top-down parsing, LR parsing, LL(1) parsing, shift-reduce parsing, LR(1) item sets and parse tables, and differences between LR(1), SLR(1), and LALR(1) parsers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    CMSC430 Spring 2011 Midterm 1 Solutions

    1. (6 pts) Compiler front ends


    a. (3 pts) Explain how bottom-up parsing is different from top-down parsing.

    Bottom-up parsers transform the input to the start symbol by applying


    productions in reverse, whereas top-down parsers start from the start
    symbol.

    b. (3 pts) Explain how a LR parser can generate a right-most derivation even though
    it scans input from left to right

    Because it generates the derivation in reverse.

    2. (32 pts) LL(1) parsing


    a. (12 pts) Compute FIRST and FOLLOW for S, A, B, and C for the following
    grammar, where ε is the empty string:

    S  AB | Cd FIRST FOLLOW
    S a, b, c, d, f $
    A a | Bf
    A a, b, f b, $
    B b | ε B b, ε f, $
    C c, ε d
    C c | ε

    b. (10 pts) Using the FIRST and FOLLOW information provided, construct the LL(1)
    parse table for the following grammar.

    S  aA | A FIRST FOLLOW a b $
    S a, b, ε $ S S aA S A S A
    A  bA | ε A b, ε $ A A bA A ε
    c. (2 pts) Is the grammar in part 2(b) LL(1)? Explain.

    Yes, because there are no conflicts in the LL(1) parse table.

    d. (8 pts) Using the following LL(1) parse table, parse the input “ba”. You only
    need to show the stack and remaining input at each stage of the parse.

    a b $ Stack Input
    S S ba S A S C $S ba$
    A A ba A bBa A ε $A ba$
    B B ε B a B ε $aBb ba$
    C C ab C ba C ε $aB a$
    $a a$
    $ $
    3. (12 pts) Shift-reduce parsing
    Given the following ACTION/GOTO table, show the parse if the current stack
    contents are 0 b 4 B 1 (i.e., current state is 1) and the remaining input is “d$”.

    State ACTION GOTO


    d e $ S B
    0 Shift 2 Reduce Reduce 2 1
    S Bb S bB
    1 Shift 3 Reduce Accept 3 4
    B d
    2 Shift 1 Shift 4 Accept 2 4
    3 Reduce Reduce Reduce 1 2
    S Bd B d S bBd
    4 Reduce Shift 3 Reduce 4 3
    B e S bSe

    Stack Input Action


    0b4B1 d$ Shift 3
    0b4B1d3 $ Reduce
    S bBd
    0S $ Goto 2
    0S2 $ Accept

    4. (20 pts) LR(1) canonical sets of items


    Given the following augmented grammar, derive the following two states in its
    canonical sets of LR(1) items: the starting state, and the state reached on a transition
    for shifting “a” from the starting state.

    S’  S [ S’ → • S, $ ] [ S → a • b, $ ]
    [ S → • Aha, $ ] a [ A → a • Ac, h ]
    S Aha | ab
    [ S → • ab, $ ] [ A → • aAc, c ]
    A aAc | d
    [ A → • aAc, h ] [ A → • d, c ]
    B b [ A → • d, h ]
    5. (12 pts) LR(1) parse table construction
    Given the following sets of LR(1) items, construct the corresponding entries in the
    LR(1) parse table.

    State 2 State ACTION GOTO


    [A → c • a, b ] a b c d A B
    c [B → c •, d ] 1 Shift 2 3 4
    2 Reduce
    State 1 State 3 B c
    A
    [S → a • A, c ] [S → aA •, c ] 3 Reduce
    [S → a • Bc, a ] S aA
    B
    [A → • ca, b ] State 4 4
    [B → • c, d ] [S → aB • c, a ]

    6. (12 pts) LR(1) conflicts


    a. (8 pts) Consider the following LR(1) items in a single state of a shift/reduce
    parser. List any conflicts that exist and describe for what lookaheads they occur.

    Shift/reduce conflict: [ A → a • bAb, d ]


    [E ca • c, a ] and [ H Ha • , c ] for lookahead c [ B → a • bc, c ]
    [ C → da • da, a ]
    Reduce/reduce conflict: [ D → aa • d, c ]
    [ F aAa •, a ] and [ G ba • , a ] for lookahead a [ E → ca • c, a ]
    [ F → aAa • , a ]
    [ G → ba • , a ]
    [ H → Ha • , c ]
    b. (4 pts) Describe how compilers may intentionally use shift-reduce parsers
    containing conflicts.

    Because it can resolve the shift/reduce conflicts in a designated way to


    implement operator precedence and associativity.

    7. (6 pts) SLR(1) & LALR(1) parsers


    a. (3 pts) What is the main advantage of SLR(1) and LALR(1) parsers, as compared
    to LR(1) parsers?

    Smaller parse table (and thus less memory).

    b. (3 pts) What is the main disadvantage of SLR(1) and LALR(1) parsers, as


    compared to LR(1) parsers?

    Unable to handle as many grammars (i.e., may have conflicts not found in
    LR(1) parser).

    You might also like