I have writen D grammar and i wanted to test it but:
-my LR parser generator generates a table with over 17000
states, and it takes around 3hours to calculate the table, using (200MB
of memory) (Probably mostly so slow because of my implementation of set
using an array and unoptimized algorithms)

So is there any tool for testing a grammar that could make grammar debugging easier and faster?

Yacc grammar ?  Not sure, though eclipse has a plugin for antlr that makes developing super cool.

>and it takes around 3hours to calculate the table, using (200MB
>of memory)

Not sure what this means, I hope thats not a runtime calculation :).  Do you have the grammar posted somewhere ?

Charlie

In article <cfvhdi$2d8o$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Ivan Senji says...
>
>I have writen D grammar and i wanted to test it but:
>-my LR parser generator generates a table with over 17000
>states, and it takes around 3hours to calculate the table, using (200MB
>of memory) (Probably mostly so slow because of my implementation of set
>using an array and unoptimized algorithms)
>
>So is there any tool for testing a grammar that could make grammar debugging easier and faster?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Charlie" <Charlie_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cg04m0$8m6$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Yacc grammar ?  Not sure, though eclipse has a plugin for antlr that makes developing super cool.
>
> >and it takes around 3hours to calculate the table, using (200MB
> >of memory)
>
> Not sure what this means, I hope thats not a runtime calculation :).  Do
you
> have the grammar posted somewhere ?


Well, a table has to be calculated only once and can be used many times :)
I'll post the grammar if i finish it, i have taken another aproach of
writing
it one little peace at a time. So now i have expressions, import,
declarations, and
while :)
But i don't think it is possible to solve some ambiguities that i have
found, like
identifier: basicType or primaryExpression? Right now to solve this my
grammars
basicTypes begins with "type". So this may turn out to be a grammar
for a hypothetical language and not for D.

If my memory serves me well, you mentioned writing a grammar too, how is that going?

> Charlie
>
> In article <cfvhdi$2d8o$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Ivan Senji says...
> >
> >I have writen D grammar and i wanted to test it but:
> >-my LR parser generator generates a table with over 17000
> >states, and it takes around 3hours to calculate the table, using (200MB
> >of memory) (Probably mostly so slow because of my implementation of set
> >using an array and unoptimized algorithms)
> >
> >So is there any tool for testing a grammar that could make grammar debugging easier and faster?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

I modified the java grammar that ships with antlr, it almost works but it had some ambiguity problems with attribues, it can do 'public :', and 'public { declDefs }' but not just 'public' :S.

Its at dsource.org under General ( sites down atm or id give link ), under D
Grammar.

Ive given it up though for the DMD front end , which is very nice.  We defintly need a grammar though.

Charlie

In article <cg0bj9$sak$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Ivan Senji says...
>
>"Charlie" <Charlie_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cg04m0$8m6$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Yacc grammar ?  Not sure, though eclipse has a plugin for antlr that makes developing super cool.
>>
>> >and it takes around 3hours to calculate the table, using (200MB
>> >of memory)
>>
>> Not sure what this means, I hope thats not a runtime calculation :).  Do
>you
>> have the grammar posted somewhere ?
>
>
>Well, a table has to be calculated only once and can be used many times :)
>I'll post the grammar if i finish it, i have taken another aproach of
>writing
>it one little peace at a time. So now i have expressions, import,
>declarations, and
>while :)
>But i don't think it is possible to solve some ambiguities that i have
>found, like
>identifier: basicType or primaryExpression? Right now to solve this my
>grammars
>basicTypes begins with "type". So this may turn out to be a grammar
>for a hypothetical language and not for D.
>
>If my memory serves me well, you mentioned writing a grammar too, how is that going?
>
>> Charlie
>>
>> In article <cfvhdi$2d8o$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Ivan Senji says...
>> >
>> >I have writen D grammar and i wanted to test it but:
>> >-my LR parser generator generates a table with over 17000
>> >states, and it takes around 3hours to calculate the table, using (200MB
>> >of memory) (Probably mostly so slow because of my implementation of set
>> >using an array and unoptimized algorithms)
>> >
>> >So is there any tool for testing a grammar that could make grammar debugging easier and faster?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

Yvan,

Here is a Yacc grammar for the "C" Language.
When processed by Bison, its gives a parser
with 355 states. There are 217 rules in this grammar.

The parser is produced in less than 2 seconds.

I think a "D" lalr grammar should be  comparable in size and time processing to the "C" one.

Try the "C" one. If you do not get better figures, then there might be a bug in your parser generator.

If you need any of the other files produced by Bison,
like the ansic.tab.c or the ansic.output file, just ask.

You posted a grammar recently (May, 2 2004), dgram.gram.
Is this the grammar you are using ?

I will do some tests with it and report my findings (if any).

-- S

"Ivan Senji" <ivan.senji@public.srce.hr> wrote in message news:cfvhdi$2d8o$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I have writen D grammar and i wanted to test it but:
> -my LR parser generator generates a table with over 17000
> states, and it takes around 3hours to calculate the table, using (200MB
> of memory) (Probably mostly so slow because of my implementation of set
> using an array and unoptimized algorithms)
>
> So is there any tool for testing a grammar that could make grammar debugging easier and faster?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 04-08-16

> -my LR parser generator generates a table with over 17000

In my preceding post i forgot to ask:

What parser generator are you using, your own
or another parser available on the Net ?

--

"Sammy" <not@there.com> wrote in message news:cg17n8$2ohr$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Yvan,
>
> Here is a Yacc grammar for the "C" Language.
> When processed by Bison, its gives a parser
> with 355 states. There are 217 rules in this grammar.

My lr(1) parser generates 1503 states and i think
this is a normal difference between lalr and lr(1)

> The parser is produced in less than 2 seconds.

Mine takes a little less than 2min, i think i should consider making a switch wich parser to create lalr or lr(1), it shouldn't be too difficult.

> I think a "D" lalr grammar should be  comparable in size and time processing to the "C" one.
>
> Try the "C" one. If you do not get better figures, then there might be a bug in your parser generator.

I wouldn't like this, because from experience these bugs are very hard to find.

> If you need any of the other files produced by Bison,
> like the ansic.tab.c or the ansic.output file, just ask.
>
> You posted a grammar recently (May, 2 2004), dgram.gram.
> Is this the grammar you are using ?

No. That is an old attempt (and not a very good one)

I think i know now why in my first attempt i got 17000 states: i was writing a grammar by figuring out what "parse.c" does. As this is basicaly a recursive descent parser + some magic the grammar i got was more complicated that it should have been because it was more like a ll(1) than lr(1) grammar.

Implementing just two changes in two rules (ideas from
c gram), decreased the number of states by ~100.

PS. I should be studying these days so it will take a couple more days before i get an even partially usefull grammar to post.

"Sammy" <not@there.com> wrote in message news:cg1ipc$mec$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > -my LR parser generator generates a table with over 17000
>
> In my preceding post i forgot to ask:
>
> What parser generator are you using, your own
> or another parser available on the Net ?

My own :) (that is why it is so slow :)

> My own :) (that is why it is so slow :)

it is written in C. C++, ???

Will you opensource it ?

"Sammy" <not@there.com> wrote in message news:cg22uf$1sg5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > My own :) (that is why it is so slow :)
>
> it is written in C. C++, ???

What kind of a question is this?
D ofcourse! :)

>
> Will you opensource it ?

Maybe, if i get to parse D with it and conclude it is
working, then i would only have to translate it to
English and make it public.

Actually the grammar is going really well, except for
one (not that tiny) simplification.