Bottom-up Parsing Algorithm by ChatGPT

Introduction

The purpose of this thread is for learning Bottom-up Parsing including LR(0), SLR,
LR(1) and LALR Parsing.

Method
By asking questions.
LR(1) and LALR Parsing Algorithm

Q1: Please explain

Please explain LALR bottom up parsing.

LALR (Look-Ahead LR) parsing is a type of bottom-up parsing technique

used in compilers to analyze and process context-free grammars. It is a variant
of the LR parsing family and is commonly used in practical parser generators
like YACC and Bison because it offers a good balance between power and
efficiency.

Key Concepts in LALR Parsing

1. Bottom-Up Parsing:
o Constructs a parse tree for a given input string starting from the
leaves (tokens) and works upward to the root (start symbol).
o Utilizes shift-reduce operations to manage parsing decisions:

 Shift: Push the next input symbol onto the stack.

 Reduce: Replace symbols on the stack with a non-terminal
based on a production rule.
2. Lookahead:
o Uses a lookahead symbol to decide the correct parsing action
(shift or reduce).
o Lookahead ensures the parser makes decisions only when it is
confident, avoiding ambiguities.
3. LR Parsing:
o LALR parsers are derived from LR(1) parsers, which use:

 L: Left-to-right scanning of the input.

 R: Rightmost derivation in reverse (bottom-up approach).
 1: One-symbol lookahead.
4. Key Optimization:
o LALR parsers combine the states of a canonical LR(1) parser to
reduce the size of the parsing table, making it smaller and more
memory-efficient.
o It does this without significantly compromising the language
recognition power, though it can lead to rare cases of reduced
precision (e.g., inability to distinguish certain conflicts).
How LALR Parsing Works
1. Start with LR(1) Parsing:
o Construct the canonical collection of LR(1) items, which
includes:
 States representing the parsing process.
 Each state contains a set of items (augmented production
rules with lookahead).
2. Merge Compatible States:
o LALR parsers identify similar states (states with identical core
items but different lookahead symbols) and merge them to create a
more compact LALR parsing table.
o This reduces the number of states compared to the full LR(1) parser.

3. Create the LALR Table:

o The LALR parsing table has:

 Action Table: Specifies shift, reduce, or accept actions based

on the current state and lookahead symbol.
 Goto Table: Specifies the next state based on the current
state and a non-terminal.
4. Parsing Process:
o Use the LALR table to parse the input string by performing shift and
reduce operations as guided by the table.

Example of LALR Parsing

Grammar:

S→Aa ∣ bAc ∣ dc ∣ bdaS \to Aa \,|\, bAc \,|\, dc \,|\, bda A→dA \to d
Steps:
1. Construct LR(1) Items:
o Create the canonical LR(1) item sets, including lookahead symbols
for each item.
2. Merge States:
o Identify states with identical cores and merge them, retaining
distinct lookahead symbols.
3. Build the LALR Table:
o Combine the merged states into a more compact parsing table.
 4. Parse the Input:
o For an input like bda, use the LALR table to guide shift-reduce
actions until the input is successfully parsed.

Advantages of LALR Parsing

1. Memory Efficiency:
o Smaller parsing tables compared to canonical LR(1) parsers, making
it practical for real-world applications.
2. Powerful Grammar Recognition:
o Handles most programming language grammars, including complex
constructs.
3. Widely Supported:
o Used in tools like YACC and Bison, making it a standard choice for
many compiler developers.

Disadvantages of LALR Parsing

1. Reduced Precision:
o Merging states can cause loss of lookahead precision, leading to
possible shift-reduce conflicts in rare cases.
2. Complexity:
o Constructing the canonical LR(1) items and merging states can be
computationally intensive.

Comparison with Other Parsers

Parser State Grammar

Efficiency Use Case
Type Size Power

Simple Fast, Limited Simple grammars, quick

LR(0) Small
Grammars Lookahead parsing.

Moderat Common
SLR(1) Efficient Suitable for many grammars.
e Grammars

Compac Complex Efficient and Widely used in real-world

LALR(1)
t Grammars Practical applications.

All LR(1) Memory- Theoretically powerful but

LR(1) Large
Grammars Intensive impractical for large grammars.

Summary
  LALR parsing is a compact and efficient approach to bottom-up
parsing, capable of handling most programming language grammars.
 It strikes a balance between the power of canonical LR(1) parsers and the
efficiency of simpler parsers like SLR.
 LALR parsers are a practical choice for real-world compilers and parser
generators.
Would you like a detailed worked-out example of an LALR parser construction or
guidance on a specific aspect?
Q2: How to check
How to check if a grammar is an LALR?

To check if a grammar is LALR(1), you need to analyze its canonical LR(1)

parsing table and determine whether merging states results in any conflicts. A
grammar is LALR(1) if merging the states does not introduce new shift-reduce
or reduce-reduce conflicts.
Here’s a step-by-step procedure:

Steps to Check if a Grammar is LALR(1)

1. Compute the Canonical LR(1) Items
 Start by constructing the canonical LR(1) item sets for the grammar.
 Steps:
1. Augment the grammar with a new start symbol S′→SS' \to S, where
SS is the original start symbol.
2. Compute the closure of the augmented grammar for the initial
state.
3. Construct the goto states by applying grammar rules and compute
closures for new states.
4. Each state contains LR(1) items, which are grammar rules with a
position marker (⋅\cdot) and a lookahead symbol.
2. Identify Core Items
 The core of a state consists of its items without lookahead symbols.
o Example:

 LR(1) item: [A→α⋅β,lookahead][A \to \alpha \cdot \beta, \

text{lookahead}]

 Core: [A→α⋅β][A \to \alpha \cdot \beta]

3. Merge States with the Same Core
 For an LALR parser, states with the same core items are merged into a
single state.
 Merge all lookahead symbols from states with identical cores.
o Example:

 State 1: [A→α⋅β,a][A \to \alpha \cdot \beta, a]

 State 2: [A→α⋅β,b][A \to \alpha \cdot \beta, b]

  Merged State: [A→α⋅β,{a,b}][A \to \alpha \cdot \beta, \{a, b\}]
4. Construct the LALR(1) Parsing Table
 Build the LALR(1) parsing table using the merged states.
 Include shift, reduce, and goto actions for each state.
5. Check for Conflicts
 Examine the LALR(1) parsing table for conflicts:
o Shift-Reduce Conflict:

 Occurs when a state contains a shift action and a reduce

action for the same input symbol.
o Reduce-Reduce Conflict:

 Occurs when a state contains two different reduce actions for

the same input symbol.
 If merging introduces conflicts that were not present in the canonical LR(1)
table, the grammar is not LALR(1).

Example
Grammar:

S→Aa ∣ bAc ∣ dc ∣ bdaS \to Aa \,|\, bAc \,|\, dc \,|\, bda A→dA \to d
Steps:
1. Canonical LR(1) Items:
o Compute the canonical LR(1) item sets (closures and gotos).

2. Identify Core Items:

o Group states with the same core items (ignore lookaheads).

3. Merge States:
o Merge states with identical cores and union their lookahead
symbols.
4. Check for Conflicts:
o Examine the resulting table. If no new conflicts arise due to
merging, the grammar is LALR(1).

Automated Approach
1. Parser Generators:
o Tools like YACC, Bison, or JFLAP can check whether a grammar is
LALR(1) by generating the parsing table.
 o The tool will report if the grammar has conflicts.

2. Manual Verification:
o Follow the steps outlined above to compute the LALR(1) table and
analyze conflicts.

Key Points
 If a grammar has a canonical LR(1) table without conflicts, it is LR(1) and
hence LALR(1).
 If merging states in the canonical LR(1) table introduces conflicts, the
grammar is not LALR(1).
 LALR(1) grammars are a subset of LR(1) grammars, but they allow a
smaller parsing table.

Would you like a worked-out example with the steps fully detailed, or assistance
in checking a specific grammar?
Q3: How different
How LALR(1) and LR(1) grammar is different?

Constructing LALR(1) parsing tables involves several steps, beginning with the
construction of canonical LR(1) items and ending with the creation of the
optimized LALR(1) table by merging compatible states. Here's a detailed guide:

Steps to Construct LALR(1) Parsing Tables

1. Augment the Grammar
 Add a new start symbol S′→SS' \to S, where SS is the original start symbol.
 This ensures the parser can detect when parsing is complete.

2. Generate Canonical LR(1) Items

1. Construct the Initial State:

o Start with the augmented production S′→⋅S,$S' \to \cdot S, \text{\$},

where $\text{\$} represents the end-of-input symbol.
o Compute the closure for this state, which includes all items
reachable via non-terminal expansions.
2. Compute Goto Transitions:
o For each item in a state, compute the goto for every terminal and
non-terminal symbol, generating new states.
o Compute the closure for each new state.

3. Repeat Until All States Are Processed:

o Continue adding states and transitions until no new states can be
generated.

3. Identify Core Items

 The core of a state consists of its items without lookahead symbols.
o Example:

 Canonical LR(1) Item: [A→α⋅β,a][A \to \alpha \cdot \beta, a]

 Core: [A→α⋅β][A \to \alpha \cdot \beta]

4. Merge States with Identical Cores

  Group states that have identical cores, combining their lookahead symbols
into a single state.
o Example:

 State 1: [A→α⋅β,a][A \to \alpha \cdot \beta, a]

 State 2: [A→α⋅β,b][A \to \alpha \cdot \beta, b]

 Merged State: [A→α⋅β,{a,b}][A \to \alpha \cdot \beta, \{a, b\}]

5. Construct the LALR(1) Parsing Table

1. Action Table:
o For each terminal in a state's lookahead set, define:

 Shift: If the next symbol is a terminal and there is a

transition to a new state.

 Reduce: If the item in the state is [A→α⋅,lookahead][A \to \

alpha \cdot, \text{lookahead}] (completed production).

 Accept: If the item is [S′→S⋅,$][S' \to S \cdot, \text{\$}].

2. Goto Table:
o For each non-terminal, record the state transition based on the goto
computation.
3. Check for Conflicts:
o Identify any shift-reduce or reduce-reduce conflicts introduced
by merging states.
o If conflicts arise, the grammar is not LALR(1).

Example: Constructing an LALR(1) Table

Grammar:

S→Aa ∣ bAc ∣ dc ∣ bdaS \to Aa \,|\, bAc \,|\, dc \,|\, bda A→dA \to d
1. Canonical LR(1) Items
 Initial State:

o [S′→⋅S,$][S' \to \cdot S, \$]

o Closure includes:

 [S→⋅Aa,$][S \to \cdot Aa, \$]

 [S→⋅bAc,$][S \to \cdot bAc, \$]

 [S→⋅dc,$][S \to \cdot dc, \$]

  [S→⋅bda,$][S \to \cdot bda, \$]

 [A→⋅d,{a,c}][A \to \cdot d, \{a, c\}]

 Goto Computation:
o Transitions on symbols like AA, aa, bb, dd, etc., generate new
states.
2. Merge States
 Identify states with identical cores and merge their lookahead symbols.
o Example:

 [A→d⋅,a][A \to d \cdot, a] and [A→d⋅,c][A \to d \cdot, c]

become [A→d⋅,{a,c}][A \to d \cdot, \{a, c\}].
3. Construct the LALR(1) Table
 Action Table:
o For each terminal and state, define shift/reduce actions.

o Example:

 In state I1I_1, dd leads to shift, while aa may lead to reduce.

 Goto Table:
o For non-terminals, record transitions between states.

4. Verify the Table

 Check for conflicts:
o If merging states introduces ambiguity (e.g., multiple actions for the
same terminal), the grammar is not LALR(1).

Tips for Constructing LALR(1) Tables

1. Automated Tools:
o Use parser generators like YACC, Bison, or JFLAP to simplify the
process.
2. Conflict Detection:
o If conflicts arise, consider:

 Refactoring the grammar to remove ambiguity.

 Switching to a more powerful parser (e.g., full LR(1)).
3. Start Small:
o Practice constructing tables for small, simple grammars before
tackling complex ones.
Advantages of LALR(1) Parsing Tables
 Compactness: Smaller tables due to merged states.
 Efficiency: Reduces memory usage and computational overhead
compared to LR(1).
 Practicality: Suitable for most programming languages.

Would you like a fully worked-out example of constructing an LALR(1) table for a
specific grammar?
Q4: Examples
Can you provide examples for LALR parsing?

Certainly! Here are step-by-step examples of parsing using LALR(1) and

shift-reduce parsing techniques. These examples will illustrate how parsing
tables are constructed and used to analyze input strings.

Example 1: Parsing Using LALR(1) Table

Grammar:

S→Aa ∣ bAc ∣ dc ∣ bdaS \to Aa \,|\, bAc \,|\, dc \,|\, bda A→dA \to d
Input String:
bdabda
Step 1: Construct LALR(1) Table
The LALR(1) parsing table includes Action and Goto components.

Stat
bb dd aa cc $ AA
e

shift goto
0
3 2

shift reduce reduce

1 accept
4 1 1

2 shift 5

shift goto
3
4 6

reduce reduce
4
2 2

reduce
5
3

6 shift 7

reduce
7
4

 Actions:
o Shift: Push the current input symbol onto the stack and transition to
the specified state.
 o Reduce: Replace a sequence of symbols with the corresponding
non-terminal using a production rule.
o Accept: Parsing is complete.

 Goto:
o Specifies transitions for non-terminals.

Step 2: Parsing Process

Ste
Stack Input Action Explanation
p

bdabd Push bb and move to

1 0 shift 3
a state 3.

Push dd and move to

2 03 dada shift 4
state 4.

reduce
3 034 aa Replace dd with AA.
2

Transition to state 6 on
4 03A aa goto 6
AA.

Push aa and move to

5 0 3 A 6 aa shift 5
state 5.

03A6 reduce
6 $ Replace bdabda with SS.
5 4

7 0S $ accept Parsing is complete.

Example 2: Parsing Using Shift-Reduce

Grammar:

E→E+T ∣ TE \to E + T \,|\, T T→T∗F ∣ FT \to T * F \,|\, F F→(E) ∣ idF \to (E) \,|\, id
Input String:

id+id∗idid + id * id
Step 1: Parsing Process

Ste
Stack Input Action Explanation
p

id+id∗idid + id Push idid onto the

1 shift
* id stack.

2 idid +id∗id+ id * id reduce F→idF \to id Replace idid with FF.

3 FF +id∗id+ id * id reduce T→FT \to F Replace FF with TT.

Ste
Stack Input Action Explanation
p

4 TT +id∗id+ id * id reduce E→TE \to T Replace TT with EE.

Push ++ onto the

5 EE +id∗id+ id * id shift
stack.

Push idid onto the

6 E+E + id∗idid * id shift
stack.

7 E+idE + id ∗id* id reduce F→idF \to id Replace idid with FF.

8 E+FE + F ∗id* id reduce T→FT \to F Replace FF with TT.

Push ∗* onto the

9 E+TE + T ∗id* id shift
stack.

Push idid onto the

10 E+T∗E + T * idid shift
stack.

E+T∗idE + T
11 reduce F→idF \to id Replace idid with FF.
* id

E+T∗FE + T reduce T→T∗FT \to Replace T∗FT * F with

12
*F T*F TT.

reduce E→E+TE \to Replace E+TE + T

13 E+TE + T
E+T with EE.

Key Takeaways
 LALR(1) Parsing:
o Utilizes a compact parsing table and lookahead symbols.

o Efficiently parses strings without ambiguity for LALR(1) grammars.

 Shift-Reduce Parsing:
o Simulates bottom-up parsing using stack operations.

o Ideal for understanding the parsing mechanism without tables.

Would you like a detailed walkthrough of any specific grammar or additional

examples?
Q5: RR Conlicts
How do reduce-reduce conflicts occur in LALR Parsing?

Reduce-reduce conflicts occur in bottom-up parsers (like LR or LALR

parsers) when the parsing table contains two or more possible reduce actions
for the same input symbol in the same state. This ambiguity means the parser
cannot decide which production rule to apply.

Why Do Reduce-Reduce Conflicts Occur?

Reduce-reduce conflicts typically arise due to:
1. Ambiguous Grammars:
o A grammar is ambiguous if there exists more than one valid parse
tree for the same input string. Ambiguity can lead to multiple
reductions being valid at a given point.
2. Grammar Design Issues:
o Poorly designed grammars may lead to multiple valid reductions at
intermediate stages, even if the grammar is unambiguous.
3. State Merging in LALR(1) Parsers:
o LALR(1) parsers merge states with identical core items (ignoring
lookaheads initially). If merging combines incompatible lookahead
symbols, it can create reduce-reduce conflicts.

How Reduce-Reduce Conflicts Arise in a Parsing Table

Consider the Grammar:

S→A ∣ BS \to A \,|\, B A→aA \to a B→aB \to a

 This grammar has two ways to derive aa (via AA or BB), even though it is
structurally unambiguous.
Canonical LR(1) Items:

1. S→⋅A,$S \to \cdot A, \$

2. S→⋅B,$S \to \cdot B, \$

3. A→⋅a,$A \to \cdot a, \$

4. B→⋅a,$B \to \cdot a, \$

Parsing Table:
Stat
aa $
e

0 shift 1

reduce A→aA \to a, reduce

1
B→aB \to a

 Conflict:
o In state 1, the parser sees aa and can either reduce A→aA \to a or
B→aB \to a. This is a reduce-reduce conflict because the parser
cannot decide which reduction to apply.

Detecting Reduce-Reduce Conflicts

1. Parsing Table Analysis:
o Examine the Action Table for a state with multiple reduce actions
for the same lookahead symbol.
2. State Merging in LALR(1):
o In LALR(1) parsers, merging states with identical cores but different
lookaheads can cause conflicting reductions.

Resolving Reduce-Reduce Conflicts

1. Refactor the Grammar:
o Rewrite the grammar to remove ambiguity or avoid situations where
multiple reductions are possible.
o Example:

 For the ambiguous grammar above, introduce a precedence

rule to prioritize AA over BB, or merge AA and BB into a
single non-terminal.
2. Use a More Powerful Parser:
o Switch to a canonical LR(1) parser, which may handle the
conflicts more effectively by avoiding state merging.
3. Adjust Grammar Design:
o Add context or lookahead symbols explicitly to disambiguate
between competing reductions.
o Example:

For the grammar: S→A ∣ BS \to A \,|\, B Add a new rule to

distinguish AA and BB: S→aX,X→ϵ ∣ bS \to aX, \quad X \to \


epsilon \,|\, b
 4. Use Semantic Rules:
o If the grammar is inherently ambiguous but intended to prioritize
one reduction, apply semantic rules during parsing to resolve
conflicts.

Example: Grammar Causing Reduce-Reduce Conflict

Ambiguous Grammar:

S→A ∣ BS \to A \,|\, B A→aA \to a B→aB \to a

 Conflict: Both AA and BB reduce aa.
Refactored Grammar:

S→A,A→aX,X→ϵ ∣ bS \to A, \quad A \to aX, \quad X \to \epsilon \,|\, b

 Now, A→aXA \to aX explicitly resolves ambiguity between AA and BB.

Summary
 Reduce-reduce conflicts occur when a parser cannot decide which
reduction to apply due to ambiguity or state merging.
 They can be resolved by refactoring the grammar, improving parser
power, or using semantic disambiguation.
Would you like an example of resolving a specific reduce-reduce conflict in a
grammar?
Q6: Non shift-reduce parser
Is there any bottom-up parser that does not use shift-reduce?

Yes, there are bottom-up parsers that do not rely on the traditional shift-reduce
mechanism. While shift-reduce parsing is the most common bottom-up
approach (e.g., SLR, LALR, and LR parsers), other bottom-up parsing techniques
exist:
1. CYK Parser (Cocke-Younger-Kasami)
 Overview: The CYK algorithm is a dynamic programming approach for
parsing context-free grammars in Chomsky Normal Form (CNF).
 How it Works: It builds a triangular table where each cell represents a
substring of the input. The parser fills the table bottom-up by combining
smaller substrings into larger ones based on the grammar rules.
 Notable Features:
o Does not use the shift-reduce mechanism.

o More of a general-purpose parser for CNF grammars.

o Used primarily in computational linguistics and natural language

processing.
 Time Complexity: O(n3)O(n^3), where nn is the length of the input
string.
2. Chart Parsing (Earley Parser)
 Overview: The Earley parser is a versatile parsing algorithm that works
for any context-free grammar, not restricted to shift-reduce techniques.
 How it Works: It uses a dynamic programming table called a "chart" to
track partially parsed grammar rules, maintaining states for predictions,
scans, and completions.
 Notable Features:
o Can handle ambiguous grammars and left-recursive rules.

o Operates in a bottom-up or top-down manner depending on

implementation.
 Time Complexity:
o O(n3)O(n^3) in the general case.

o O(n2)O(n^2) for unambiguous grammars.

o O(n)O(n) for simple LL(1) grammars.

3. GLR Parser (Generalized LR)

  Overview: GLR parsing extends traditional LR parsing to handle all
context-free grammars, including ambiguous ones.
 How it Works: Instead of a strict shift-reduce approach, it uses a graph-
structured stack to explore multiple parsing possibilities simultaneously.
 Notable Features:
o Processes grammars that traditional LR parsers cannot handle.

o Works well in cases of ambiguity, as it can follow multiple parse

trees in parallel.
 Time Complexity: Can vary depending on the grammar, but potentially
O(n3)O(n^3) in the worst case.
4. Parsing Expression Grammar (PEG) Parsers
 Overview: PEG-based parsers use a deterministic approach and are
different from traditional context-free grammar parsers.
 How it Works: Parsing expressions are evaluated in a recursive-descent
manner, often using memoization (Packrat Parsing) to simulate a bottom-
up approach.
 Notable Features:
o Avoids ambiguity by prioritizing alternatives.

o Does not rely on the shift-reduce mechanism.

 Time Complexity: O(n)O(n) with memoization (Packrat).

Key Differences from Shift-Reduce
 No Stack for Tokens: Some parsers like CYK and Earley don't rely on an
explicit stack for shift/reduce operations but instead maintain parsing
states or tables.
 Focus on Grammar Rules: Many of these parsers operate directly on the
grammar rules using dynamic programming or state representation.
 Ambiguity Handling: Approaches like GLR and Earley can handle
ambiguities naturally, unlike standard shift-reduce parsers.
These alternatives showcase the diversity in parsing techniques beyond the shift-
reduce paradigm, catering to different needs and grammar types.