date:20100319

[il-antlr-interest: 28323] Re: [antlr-interest] Help with semantic actions commit

2010-03-19 Thread Terence Parr

hi. antlr shouldn't see past actions to sem preds.  are you sure that  
the define sym action is in every path?  Do you get an error about  
insufficiently uncovered alts?

Ter
On Mar 18, 2010, at 4:54 PM, swalton wrote:

 I derived my grammar from Terry's C grammar.  I have added a lot of
 semantic actions and kept the typedef symbol definition.  I have run  
 into a
 problem and need help.  Consider the following:

 typedef int uint32_t;
 typedef uint32_t result_t;

 I can have any number of these typedefs, but this case is sufficient  
 to
 illustrate the problem I am encountering.  The grammar looks ahead  
 beyond
 the first semicolon before committing the 'uint32_t' in the scope  
 table.
 Needless to say, the second line always fails.  I watched step-by- 
 step,
 placing System.err.print()'s along the way to find out when the
 '$Symbols::types.add(name);' is called.  The test (boolean
 isTypeName(String name)) always occurs *before* 'uint32_t' is  
 stored.  I
 added a { addName(name) }? test (which always returns true) to see  
 if I
 could force an execution of the semantic action without success.

 How do I get the symbol committed?
 How do I keep ANTLR from looking so far ahead?

 Any help is appreciated.  This is a major roadblock.

 -Sean Walton
 PhD Student, SoC, U of U

 List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
 Unsubscribe: 
 http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address


List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
il-antlr-interest group.
To post to this group, send email to il-antlr-inter...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
il-antlr-interest+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/il-antlr-interest?hl=en.

[il-antlr-interest: 28324] [antlr-interest] Problem removing warning

2010-03-19 Thread Gerald Rosenberg

Having a bit of difficulty in figuring out how to unambiguously parse 
this into an AST.
Order of the elements is significant, the parens are significant, and 
the leading dot is significant.


  (.buf_unittest.complex_opt1).foo;
  .buf_unittest.complex_opt1.fum;
  (buf_unittest.complex_opt1).(.buf_unittest.quux);
  (.buf_unittest.complex_opt1).(buf_unittest.corge).qux;
  (complex_opt2).baz;
  (complex_opt2).(grault);
  (complex_opt2).bar.foo;
  (complex_opt2).bar.(quux);
  (complex_opt2).bar.(buf_unittest.corge).qux;
  (complex_opt2).(garply).foo;
  (complex_opt2).(garply).(.buf_unittest.quux);
  (complex_opt2).(buf_unittest.garply).(corge).qux;
  (ComplexOptionType2.ComplexOptionType4.complex_opt4).waldo;
  (complex_opt2).fred.waldo;
  (buf_unittest.complex_opt3).qux;
  (complex_opt3).complexoptiontype5.plugh;
  (complexopt6).xyzzy;

The rule ident_parens following appears to work, but Antlr is 
complaining Decision can match input such as '.' ID using multiple 
alternatives: 1, 2 on both identN and identO.  I can see the 
theoretical overlap, but cannot tell if the warning is actually 
significant or how to fix the rules to avoid the warning.


ident_parens
: (identM | identN | identO ) ('.' ( identM | identO ) )*
;

identM
:  '(' '.' ipd+=ID ( '.' ipd+=ID )* ')'   - ^( IDENT_PARENSDOT $ipd+ )
|  '(' ip+=ID ( '.' ip+=ID )* ')' - ^( IDENT_PARENS $ip+ )
;

identN
: '.' id+=ID ( '.' id+=ID )*  - ^( IDENT_DOT $id+ )
;

identO
: i+=ID ( '.' i+=ID )*- ^( IDENT $i+ )
;


Thanks...

grammar PBTest ;

options { 
ASTLabelType = CommonTree;
output = AST;
}

tokens { 
MAIN;
IDENT = 'ident';
IDENT_DOT = 'ident_dot';
IDENT_PARENS = 'ident_parens';
IDENT_PARENSDOT = 'ident_parens_dot';
}

// 
/

@parser::header {

package net.certiv.core.parser.gen;
}

@lexer::header {

package net.certiv.core.parser.gen;
}

ident
: ident_parens+ EOF  - ^( MAIN ident_parens+ )
;

ident_parens
:  ( identM | identN | identO )  ( '.' ( identM | identO )  )* ';'
;

identM
: '(' '.' ipd+=ID ( '.' ipd+=ID )* ')'  - ^( IDENT_PARENSDOT 
$ipd+ )
| '(' ip+=ID ( '.' ip+=ID )* ')'- ^( 
IDENT_PARENS $ip+ )
;

identN
: '.' id+=ID ( '.' id+=ID )* - ^( IDENT_DOT $id+ )
;

identO
: i+=ID ( '.' i+=ID )* - ^( IDENT $i+ )
;

// ///


ID
: LETTER ( LETTER | '_' | DIGIT )*
;

fragment
LETTER
: UPPER | LOWER
;

fragment
DIGIT
: '0'..'9'
;

fragment
LOWER
: 'a'..'z'
;

fragment
UPPER
: 'A'..'Z'
;

WS
:  ( ' ' | '\r' | '\t' | '\u000C' | '\n' ) { $channel = HIDDEN; }
;

  (.buf_unittest.complex_opt1).foo;
  .buf_unittest.complex_opt1.fum;
  (buf_unittest.complex_opt1).(.buf_unittest.quux);
  (.buf_unittest.complex_opt1).(buf_unittest.corge).qux;
  (complex_opt2).baz;
  (complex_opt2).(grault);
  (complex_opt2).bar.foo;
  (complex_opt2).bar.(quux);
  (complex_opt2).bar.(buf_unittest.corge).qux;
  (complex_opt2).(garply).foo;
  (complex_opt2).(garply).(.buf_unittest.quux);
  (complex_opt2).(buf_unittest.garply).(corge).qux;
  (ComplexOptionType2.ComplexOptionType4.complex_opt4).waldo;
  (complex_opt2).fred.waldo;
  (buf_unittest.complex_opt3).qux;
  (complex_opt3).complexoptiontype5.plugh;
  (complexopt6).xyzzy;
List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
il-antlr-interest group.
To post to this group, send email to il-antlr-inter...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
il-antlr-interest+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/il-antlr-interest?hl=en.

[il-antlr-interest: 28326] Re: [antlr-interest] Problem removing warning

2010-03-19 Thread Jim Idle

That will give a tree that isn't very useful ;-) You need to express this in LL 
form such that the things that can be elements of your compound appear at the 
bottom of the tree. Then use DOT and not '.', make that be the root node and do 
not try to impose any semantic verification via syntactical specifications. You 
get:


grammar T;

options { output=AST; }

tokens {EXPR; FUNC;}

aago:(expr NL)+ EOF
-^(EXPR expr)+
;

expr
 : element (DOT^ element)* 
 ;

element
: LPAREN! expr RPAREN!  // Sometimes you want to preserve the LPAREN 
here
| ID (LPAREN^ expr RPAREN)? // function call
;

LPAREN  :'(';
RPAREN  :')';
ID  :('A'..'Z')+;
DOT :   '.' ;
NL  :   ('\n'|'\r')+; 
ANY :. {skip();};


 -Original Message-
 From: antlr-interest-boun...@antlr.org [mailto:antlr-interest-
 boun...@antlr.org] On Behalf Of Gerald Rosenberg
 Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 10:01 AM
 To: antlr-interest interest
 Subject: [antlr-interest] Problem removing warning
 
 Having a bit of difficulty in figuring out how to unambiguously parse
 this into an AST.
 Order of the elements is significant, the parens are significant, and
 the leading dot is significant.
 
(.buf_unittest.complex_opt1).foo;
.buf_unittest.complex_opt1.fum;
(buf_unittest.complex_opt1).(.buf_unittest.quux);
(.buf_unittest.complex_opt1).(buf_unittest.corge).qux;
(complex_opt2).baz;
(complex_opt2).(grault);
(complex_opt2).bar.foo;
(complex_opt2).bar.(quux);
(complex_opt2).bar.(buf_unittest.corge).qux;
(complex_opt2).(garply).foo;
(complex_opt2).(garply).(.buf_unittest.quux);
(complex_opt2).(buf_unittest.garply).(corge).qux;
(ComplexOptionType2.ComplexOptionType4.complex_opt4).waldo;
(complex_opt2).fred.waldo;
(buf_unittest.complex_opt3).qux;
(complex_opt3).complexoptiontype5.plugh;
(complexopt6).xyzzy;
 
 The rule ident_parens following appears to work, but Antlr is
 complaining Decision can match input such as '.' ID using multiple
 alternatives: 1, 2 on both identN and identO.  I can see the
 theoretical overlap, but cannot tell if the warning is actually
 significant or how to fix the rules to avoid the warning.
 
 ident_parens
  : (identM | identN | identO ) ('.' ( identM | identO ) )*
  ;
 
 identM
  :  '(' '.' ipd+=ID ( '.' ipd+=ID )* ')'   - ^( IDENT_PARENSDOT
 $ipd+ )
  |  '(' ip+=ID ( '.' ip+=ID )* ')' - ^( IDENT_PARENS $ip+
 )
  ;
 
 identN
  : '.' id+=ID ( '.' id+=ID )*  - ^( IDENT_DOT $id+ )
  ;
 
 identO
  : i+=ID ( '.' i+=ID )*- ^( IDENT $i+ )
  ;
 
 
 Thanks...





List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
il-antlr-interest group.
To post to this group, send email to il-antlr-inter...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
il-antlr-interest+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/il-antlr-interest?hl=en.

[il-antlr-interest: 28327] Re: [antlr-interest] sematic analysis ?

2010-03-19 Thread Kaleb Pederson

On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Kaleb Pederson
kaleb.peder...@gmail.com wrote:
 Venkat,

 One way to do what you've mentioned is to create a tree walker which
 walks the AST.  Then, within the AST, you'll need to do a couple of
 things.

 First, you need to populate a symbol table.  That symbol table will
 store the different objects/variables that are declared.  In your
 example, it would store a and b, their values, if known, and their
 types.

 Second, you need to do an analysis of the structure while using the
 symbol table.  Here's a fragment from one of my tree walking grammars:

 plusMinusExpression returns [Type type]
        :       ^(PLUS lhs=baseExpression rhs=baseExpression)
                {
                        typeChecker.assertIsNumericType($lhs.type);
                        typeChecker.assertIsNumericType($rhs.type);
                        typeChecker.assertEqualTypes($lhs.type, $rhs.type);
                        $type = $lhs.type;
                }
                /* ... */
                ;

I realized that doesn't fully explain everything. In the various
expressions, I resolve any necessary symbols and then resolve their
types by:

* using the symbol table if it's a variable, OR
* using the type of the literal

I then return the type of the expression so I can verify that the
types match throughout the entire expression.

--
Kaleb Pederson

http://kalebpederson.com
http://twitter.com/kalebpederson

List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
il-antlr-interest group.
To post to this group, send email to il-antlr-inter...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
il-antlr-interest+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/il-antlr-interest?hl=en.

[il-antlr-interest: 28328] Re: [antlr-interest] Problem removing warning

2010-03-19 Thread Gerald Rosenberg

Thanks, Jim.  Please understand though that I dumbed down the test 
grammar to minimally illustrate the problem I was asking about - my 
actual grammar shapes a much more complex tree and uses tidy 
tokens;).  The revision you suggest unfortunately looses a bit too much 
intrinsic information that would be difficult to infer if at all in a 
later pass.  As I mentioned, the order, existence and position of the 
parens and leading dots are significant - (foo), .foo, (.foo), and foo 
are not equivalent and need to be distinctly represented in the tree.

On 3/19/2010 10:41 AM, Jim Idle wrote:
 That will give a tree that isn't very useful ;-) You need to express this in 
 LL form such that the things that can be elements of your compound appear at 
 the bottom of the tree. Then use DOT and not '.', make that be the root node 
 and do not try to impose any semantic verification via syntactical 
 specifications. You get:


 grammar T;

 options { output=AST; }

 tokens {  EXPR; FUNC;}

 aago  :(expr NL)+ EOF
   -^(EXPR expr)+
   ;

 expr
   : element (DOT^ element)*
   ;

 element
   : LPAREN! expr RPAREN!  // Sometimes you want to preserve the LPAREN 
 here
   | ID (LPAREN^ expr RPAREN)? // function call
 ;

 LPAREN:'(';
 RPAREN  :  ')';
 ID:('A'..'Z')+;
 DOT   :   '.' ;
 NL:   ('\n'|'\r')+;
 ANY   :. {skip();};



 -Original Message-
 From: antlr-interest-boun...@antlr.org [mailto:antlr-interest-
 boun...@antlr.org] On Behalf Of Gerald Rosenberg
 Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 10:01 AM
 To: antlr-interest interest
 Subject: [antlr-interest] Problem removing warning

 Having a bit of difficulty in figuring out how to unambiguously parse
 this into an AST.
 Order of the elements is significant, the parens are significant, and
 the leading dot is significant.

 (.buf_unittest.complex_opt1).foo;
 .buf_unittest.complex_opt1.fum;
 (buf_unittest.complex_opt1).(.buf_unittest.quux);
 (.buf_unittest.complex_opt1).(buf_unittest.corge).qux;
 (complex_opt2).baz;
 (complex_opt2).(grault);
 (complex_opt2).bar.foo;
 (complex_opt2).bar.(quux);
 (complex_opt2).bar.(buf_unittest.corge).qux;
 (complex_opt2).(garply).foo;
 (complex_opt2).(garply).(.buf_unittest.quux);
 (complex_opt2).(buf_unittest.garply).(corge).qux;
 (ComplexOptionType2.ComplexOptionType4.complex_opt4).waldo;
 (complex_opt2).fred.waldo;
 (buf_unittest.complex_opt3).qux;
 (complex_opt3).complexoptiontype5.plugh;
 (complexopt6).xyzzy;

 The rule ident_parens following appears to work, but Antlr is
 complaining Decision can match input such as '.' ID using multiple
 alternatives: 1, 2 on both identN and identO.  I can see the
 theoretical overlap, but cannot tell if the warning is actually
 significant or how to fix the rules to avoid the warning.

 ident_parens
   : (identM | identN | identO ) ('.' ( identM | identO ) )*
   ;

 identM
   :  '(' '.' ipd+=ID ( '.' ipd+=ID )* ')'   -  ^( IDENT_PARENSDOT
 $ipd+ )
   |  '(' ip+=ID ( '.' ip+=ID )* ')' -  ^( IDENT_PARENS $ip+
 )
   ;

 identN
   : '.' id+=ID ( '.' id+=ID )*  -  ^( IDENT_DOT $id+ )
   ;

 identO
   : i+=ID ( '.' i+=ID )*-  ^( IDENT $i+ )
   ;


 Thanks...
  




 List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
 Unsubscribe: 
 http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address






List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
il-antlr-interest group.
To post to this group, send email to il-antlr-inter...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
il-antlr-interest+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/il-antlr-interest?hl=en.

[il-antlr-interest: 28329] Re: [antlr-interest] Problem removing warning

2010-03-19 Thread Jim Idle

Yes - you can retain all that stuff, but if you try to do it the way you have 
it, you won't get a tree that makes sense. You can see a much more complicated 
example using my C# parser, which is online at:

http://www.temporal-wave.com/index.php?option=com_psrrunview=psrrunItemid=58

All you need do is not kill the information I am killing. (and add | DOT 
element to the expr). However, you know what you want :-)

jim

 -Original Message-
 From: Gerald Rosenberg [mailto:ger...@certiv.net]
 Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 11:24 AM
 To: Jim Idle
 Cc: antlr-interest interest
 Subject: Re: [antlr-interest] Problem removing warning
 
 Thanks, Jim.  Please understand though that I dumbed down the test
 grammar to minimally illustrate the problem I was asking about - my
 actual grammar shapes a much more complex tree and uses tidy
 tokens;).  The revision you suggest unfortunately looses a bit too
 much
 intrinsic information that would be difficult to infer if at all in a
 later pass.  As I mentioned, the order, existence and position of the
 parens and leading dots are significant - (foo), .foo, (.foo), and foo
 are not equivalent and need to be distinctly represented in the tree.
 
 On 3/19/2010 10:41 AM, Jim Idle wrote:
  That will give a tree that isn't very useful ;-) You need to express
 this in LL form such that the things that can be elements of your
 compound appear at the bottom of the tree. Then use DOT and not '.',
 make that be the root node and do not try to impose any semantic
 verification via syntactical specifications. You get:
 
 
  grammar T;
 
  options { output=AST; }
 
  tokens {EXPR; FUNC;}
 
  aago:(expr NL)+ EOF
  -^(EXPR expr)+
  ;
 
  expr
: element (DOT^ element)*
;
 
  element
  : LPAREN! expr RPAREN!  // Sometimes you want to preserve the
 LPAREN here
  | ID (LPAREN^ expr RPAREN)? // function call
  ;
 
  LPAREN  :'(';
  RPAREN  :')';
  ID  :('A'..'Z')+;
  DOT :   '.' ;
  NL  :   ('\n'|'\r')+;
  ANY :. {skip();};
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: antlr-interest-boun...@antlr.org [mailto:antlr-interest-
  boun...@antlr.org] On Behalf Of Gerald Rosenberg
  Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 10:01 AM
  To: antlr-interest interest
  Subject: [antlr-interest] Problem removing warning
 
  Having a bit of difficulty in figuring out how to unambiguously
 parse
  this into an AST.
  Order of the elements is significant, the parens are significant,
 and
  the leading dot is significant.
 
  (.buf_unittest.complex_opt1).foo;
  .buf_unittest.complex_opt1.fum;
  (buf_unittest.complex_opt1).(.buf_unittest.quux);
  (.buf_unittest.complex_opt1).(buf_unittest.corge).qux;
  (complex_opt2).baz;
  (complex_opt2).(grault);
  (complex_opt2).bar.foo;
  (complex_opt2).bar.(quux);
  (complex_opt2).bar.(buf_unittest.corge).qux;
  (complex_opt2).(garply).foo;
  (complex_opt2).(garply).(.buf_unittest.quux);
  (complex_opt2).(buf_unittest.garply).(corge).qux;
  (ComplexOptionType2.ComplexOptionType4.complex_opt4).waldo;
  (complex_opt2).fred.waldo;
  (buf_unittest.complex_opt3).qux;
  (complex_opt3).complexoptiontype5.plugh;
  (complexopt6).xyzzy;
 
  The rule ident_parens following appears to work, but Antlr is
  complaining Decision can match input such as '.' ID using
 multiple
  alternatives: 1, 2 on both identN and identO.  I can see the
  theoretical overlap, but cannot tell if the warning is actually
  significant or how to fix the rules to avoid the warning.
 
  ident_parens
: (identM | identN | identO ) ('.' ( identM | identO ) )*
;
 
  identM
:  '(' '.' ipd+=ID ( '.' ipd+=ID )* ')'   -  ^(
 IDENT_PARENSDOT
  $ipd+ )
|  '(' ip+=ID ( '.' ip+=ID )* ')' -  ^( IDENT_PARENS
 $ip+
  )
;
 
  identN
: '.' id+=ID ( '.' id+=ID )*  -  ^( IDENT_DOT
 $id+ )
;
 
  identO
: i+=ID ( '.' i+=ID )*-  ^( IDENT $i+ )
;
 
 
  Thanks...
 
 
 
 
 
  List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
  Unsubscribe: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-
 interest/your-email-address
 
 
 
 





List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
il-antlr-interest group.
To post to this group, send email to il-antlr-inter...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
il-antlr-interest+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/il-antlr-interest?hl=en.

[il-antlr-interest: 28331] Re: [antlr-interest] THelp w/ Tree Grammer - Rule Action Error

2010-03-19 Thread John B. Brodie

Greetings!

On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 15:26 -0400, William Koscho wrote:
 Hi All,
 
 I have a tree grammar, and am trying to just print out some information from
 the tree.  This works fine for matching tokens, but not when matching the
 rules.  I'm hoping someone can help explain why this is giving me a
 NullPointerException and how to correct it:
 
 Tree Grammar:
 
 // the $i.text causes the NullPointerException, when I $i.text, it works
 fine
 interfaceDeclaration:  ^(i=interfaceType ID) { System.out.println($i.text +
 :  + $ID.text); };
 
 interfaceType:
PROVIDES
  | REQUIRES;
 
 Corresponding Parser Grammar:
 
 interfaceDeclaration:   interfaceType ID - ^(interfaceType ID);
 interfaceType:
'provides' - PROVIDES
  | 'requires' - REQUIRES;
 

I believe your interfaceType parser rule does not initialize the text of
the token it creates for the tree node. You should be able to inspect
the generated code and verify this

I believe you want your interfaceType parser rule to be:

interfaceType : 
( k='provides' - PROVIDES[$k] ) 
  | ( k='requires' - REQUIRES[$k] )
  ;

if i recall correctly, using the [] stuff sets both the text and the
location of the generated virtual token.

and oh by the way are you sure you really need the virtual tokens?

hope this helps...
   -jbb



List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
il-antlr-interest group.
To post to this group, send email to il-antlr-inter...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
il-antlr-interest+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/il-antlr-interest?hl=en.

[il-antlr-interest: 28332] Re: [antlr-interest] Problem removing warning

2010-03-19 Thread Gerald Rosenberg



List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
il-antlr-interest group.
To post to this group, send email to il-antlr-inter...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
il-antlr-interest+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/il-antlr-interest?hl=en.

[il-antlr-interest: 28333] [antlr-interest] semantic analysis

2010-03-19 Thread venkat medhaj

Hi,

I have a simple grammar for which I was able to walk through the AST and
printout the input text to the console. I learned that we need to put the
information in the symbol table and do the semantic analysis from there on.
How , what information should I put into the symbol table and how do I check
for type errors ?

Let say, I have something like a + b, given that I am able to walk through
the AST, how do I do the type checking for this little case?
Any simple code snippets would be appreciated.

Thanks.

List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
il-antlr-interest group.
To post to this group, send email to il-antlr-inter...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
il-antlr-interest+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/il-antlr-interest?hl=en.

[il-antlr-interest: 28334] Re: [antlr-interest] semantic analysis

2010-03-19 Thread John B. Brodie

Greetings!

On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 17:01 -0400, venkat medhaj wrote:
 Hi,
 
 I have a simple grammar for which I was able to walk through the AST and
 printout the input text to the console. I learned that we need to put the
 information in the symbol table and do the semantic analysis from there on.
 How , what information should I put into the symbol table and how do I check
 for type errors ?
 
 Let say, I have something like a + b, given that I am able to walk through
 the AST, how do I do the type checking for this little case?
 Any simple code snippets would be appreciated.
 

Attached please find an example Expression parsing suite for ANTLRv3. I
intended for this to be a simple tutorial example for tree rewriting. It
is complete, but not documented. So, as is, it is not a very good
example, but hopefully you can see one possibility for your solution (i
hope).

It has 4 phases: 1) parsing, 2) type checking, 3) instruction selection,
and 4) evaluation. There is a grammar that drives each phase. Probably
start by looking at the Main.java and try to figure out where we go from
there... (sorry for the lack of commentary/documentation)

Hope this helps
   -jbb


List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address


expressions.tgz
Description: application/compressed-tar
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
il-antlr-interest group.
To post to this group, send email to il-antlr-inter...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
il-antlr-interest+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/il-antlr-interest?hl=en.

[il-antlr-interest: 28323] Re: [antlr-interest] Help with semantic actions commit

[il-antlr-interest: 28324] [antlr-interest] Problem removing warning

[il-antlr-interest: 28326] Re: [antlr-interest] Problem removing warning

[il-antlr-interest: 28327] Re: [antlr-interest] sematic analysis ?

[il-antlr-interest: 28328] Re: [antlr-interest] Problem removing warning

[il-antlr-interest: 28329] Re: [antlr-interest] Problem removing warning

[il-antlr-interest: 28331] Re: [antlr-interest] THelp w/ Tree Grammer - Rule Action Error

[il-antlr-interest: 28332] Re: [antlr-interest] Problem removing warning

[il-antlr-interest: 28333] [antlr-interest] semantic analysis

[il-antlr-interest: 28334] Re: [antlr-interest] semantic analysis

10 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information