Packrat parsing vs. LALR parsing - parsing
A lot of websites states that packrat parsers can parse input in linear time.
So at the first look they me be faster than LALR parser contructed by the tools yacc or bison.
I wanted to know if the performance of packrat parsers is better/worse than the performance of LALR parser when tested with common input (like programming language source files) and not with any theoretical inputs.
Does anyone can explain the main differences between the two approaches.
Thanks!
I'm not an expert at packrat parsing, but you can learn more at Parsing expression grammar on Wikipedia.
I haven't dug into it so I'll assume the linear-time characterization of packrat parsing is correct.
L(AL)R parsers are linear time parsers too. So in theory, neither packrat nor L(AL)R parsers are "faster".
What matters, in practice, of course, is implementation. L(AL)R state transitions can be executed in very few machine instructions ("look token code up in vector, get next state and action") so they can be extremely fast in practice. By "compiling" L(AL)R parsing to machine code, you can end up with lightning fast parsers, as shown by this 1986 Tom Pennello paper on Very Fast LR parsing. (Machines are now 20 years faster than when he wrote the paper!).
If packrat parsers are storing/caching results as they go, they may be linear time, but I'd guess the constant overhead would be pretty high, and then L(AL)R parsers in practice would be much faster. The YACC and Bison implementations from what I hear are pretty good.
If you care about the answer, read the basic technical papers closely; if you really care, then implement one of each and check out the overhead constants. My money is strongly on L(AL)R.
An observation: most language front-ends don't spend most of their time "parsing"; rather, they spend a lot of time in lexical analysis. Optimize that (your bio says you are), and the parser speed won't matter much.
(I used to build LALR parser generators and corresponding parsers. I don't do that anymore; instead I use GLR parsers which are linear time in practice but handle arbitrary context-free grammmars. I give up some performance, but I can [and do, see bio] build dozens of parsers for many languages without a lot of trouble.).
I am the author of LRSTAR, an open-source LR(k) parser generator. Because people are showing interest in it, I have put the product back online here LRSTAR.
I have studied the speed of LALR parsers and DFA lexers for many years. Tom Pennello's paper is very interesting, but is more of an academic exercise than a real-world solution for compilers. However, if all you want is a pattern recognizer, then it may be the perfect solution for you.
The problem is that real-world compilers usually need to do more than pattern recognition, such as symbol-table look-up for incoming symbols, error recovery, provide an expecting list (statement completion information), and build an abstract-syntax tree while parsing.
In 1989, I compared the parsing speed of LRSTAR parsers to "yacc" and found that they are 2 times the speed of "yacc" parsers. LRSTAR parsers use the ideas published in the paper: "Optimization of Parser Tables for Portable Compilers".
For lexer (lexical analysis) speed I discovered in 2009 that "re2c" was generating the fastest lexers, about twice the speed of those generated by "flex". I was rewriting the LRSTAR lexer generator section at that time and found a way to make lexers that are almost as fast as "re2c" and much smaller. However, I prefer the table-driven lexers that LRSTAR generates, because they are almost as fast and the code compiles much quicker.
BTW, compiler front-ends generated by LRSTAR can process source code at a speed of 2,400,000 lines per second or faster. The lexers generated by LRSTAR can process 30,000,000 tokens per second. The testing computer was a 3.5 GHz machine (from 2010).
[2015/02/15] here is the 1986 Tom Pennello paper on Very Fast LR parsing
http://www.genesishistory.org/content/ProfPapers/VF-LRParsing.pdf
I know this is an old post, but a month or so ago, I stumbled on this paper: https://www.mercurylang.org/documentation/papers/packrat.pdf and accidentally saw this post today.
The watered-down version of that the paper says: packrat memoisation is a mixed blessing. The best results can be achieved if you have some heuristics wrt how often this or another rule is going to match. Essentially, it only makes sense to memoise the rules that have two following properties: (1) few elements, (2) very common.
Performance is mostly a matter of language design. For each language, there will be an approach, technology, or parser generator that will make best fit.
I can't prove it without more thought, but I think that nothing can beat a top-down descent parser in which the semantics drive the parser, and the parser drives the lexer, performance-wise. It would also be among the most versatile and easier to maintain among the implementations.
Related
are there books/articles on writing hand-written parser with learn-by-doing or incremental approach?
Because of only curiosity, I'd like to write hand-written parser, I know there are many compiler-compilers though. Ironically saying, since I'm new in this branch, I have no confidence to understand underlying theory and then apply theoretical knowledge to build parser and further full compiler. So learning-by-doing approach might be helpful. Are there good books/articles/tutorials met my desire in above manner?
The construction of semantic analyser
In the process of learning about compilers a wrote a simple tokenizer and parser (recursive descent). The parser constructs an abstract syntax tree. Now I am going with semantic analysis. However I have a few questions about a construction of semantic analyser. Should I analyse the code semantically on the generated abstract syntax tree using recursive calls through the tree or maybe should I construct another tree (using a visitor pattern for example) for the purpose of semantic analysis. I found a document online which says that I should analyse the code semantically during the process of parsing, but it does not comply with a rule of single responsibility and makes the whole parser more prone to errors. Or maybe should I make semantic analysis a part of a intermediate representation generator? Maybe I am missing something, I would be grateful if someone could clarify this thing for me.
You are learning. Keep it simple; build a tree and run the semantic analyzer over the tree when parsing is completed.
If you decide (someday) to build a fast compiler, you might consider implementing some of that semantic analysis as you parse. This makes building both the parser and the semantic analyzer harder because they are now interacting (tangled is a better word, read about why most C++ parsers are implemented with a so-called "lexer hack" if you want to get ill). You'll also find that sometimes the information you need isn't available ("is the target of that goto defined so far?" so you usually can't do a complete job as parse runs, or you may have to delay some semantic processing for later in the parse and that's tricky to arrange. I don't recommend adding this kind of complexity early in your compiler education.
Start simple and focus on learning what semantic analysis is about.
You can optimize later when it is clear what you have to optimize and why you should do it.
What parsing strategy is used on Stanford Parser?
I'm writing a paper where I analyse different available tools for natural language parsing. I found out that two main strategies for parsing are top-down and bottom down. I wonder which strategy is used in Stanford Parser? I know that they used probabilistic approach there, but is not based on any of bottom-up or top-down?
As far as I know, it is a CYK parser (see here, Section 1), i.e. a bottom up parser.
Practical examples of NFA and epsilon NFA
What are the real time examples of NFA and epsilon NFA i.e. practical examples other than that it is used in designing compilers
Any time anyone uses a regular expression, they're using a finite automaton. And if you don't know a lot about regexes, let me tell you they're incredibly common -- in many ecosystems, it's the first tool most people try to apply when faced with getting structured data out of strings. Understanding automata is one way to understand (and reason about) regexes, and a quite viable one at that if you're mathematically inclined. Actually, today's regex engines have grown beyond these mathematical concepts and added features that permit doing more than an FA allows. Nevertheless, many regexes don't use these features, or use them in such a limited way that it's feasible to implement them with FAs. Now, I only spoke of finite automata in general before. An NFA is a specific FA, just like a DFA is, and the two can be converted into one another (technically, any DFA already is a NFA). So while you can just substitute "finite automaton" with "NFA" in the above, be aware that it doesn't have to be an NFA under the hood.
Like explained by #delnan, automatas are often used in the form of regular expressions. However, they are used a bit more than just that. Automatas are often used to model hardware and software systems and verifying their certain properties. You can find more information by looking at model checking. One really really simplified motivating example can be found in the introduction of Introduction to Automata, Languages, and Computation.
And let's not forget Markov chains which are basically based on on finite automata as well. In combination with the hardware and sofware modelling that bellpeace mentioned, a very powerful tool. If you are wondering why epsilon NFAs are considered a variation of NFAs, then I don't think there is a good reason. They are interpreted in the same way, except every step may not be a unit time anymore, but an NFA is that not really either.
A somewhat obscure but effective example would be the aho-corasick algorithm, which uses a finite automaton to search for multiple strings within text
Why is bottom-up parsing more common than top-down parsing?
It seems that recursive-descent parsers are not only the simplest to explain, but also the simplest to design and maintain. They aren't limited to LALR(1) grammars, and the code itself can be understood by mere mortals. In contrast, bottom up parsers have limits on the grammars they are able to recognize, and need to be generated by special tools (because the tables that drive them are next-to-impossible to generate by hand). Why then, is bottom-up (i.e. shift-reduce) parsing more common than top-down (i.e. recursive descent) parsing?
If you choose a powerful parser generator, you can code your grammar without worrying about peculiar properties. (LA)LR means you don't have to worry about left recursion, one less headache. GLR means you don't have to worry about local ambiguity or lookahead. And the bottom-up parsers tend to be pretty efficient. So, once you've paid the price of a bit of complicated machinery, it is easier to write grammars and the parsers perform well. You should expect to see this kind of choice wherever there is some programming construct that commonly occurs: if it is easier to specify, and it performs pretty well, even if the machinery is complicated, complex machinery will win. As another example, the database world has gone to relational tools, in spite of the fact that you can hand-build an indexed file yourself. It's easier to write the data schemas, it's easier to specify the indexes, and with complicated enough machinery behind (you don't have to look at the gears, you just use them), they can be pretty fast with almost no effort. Same reasons.
It stems from a couple different things. BNF (and the theory of grammars and such) comes from computational linguistics: folks researching natural language parsing. BNF is a very attractive way of describing a grammar, and so it's natural to want to consume these notation to produce a parser. Unfortunately, top-down parsing techniques tend to fall over when applied to such notations, because they cannot handle many common cases (e.g., left recursion). This leaves you with the LR family, which performs well and can handle the grammars, and since they're being produced by a machine, who cares what the code looks like? You're right, though: top-down parsers work more "intuitively," so they're easier to debug and maintain, and once you have a little practice they're just as easy to write as those generated by tools. (Especially when you get into shift/reduce conflict hell.) Many of the answers talk about parsing performance, but in practice top-down parsers can often be optimized to be as fast as machine-generated parsers. That's why many production compilers use hand-written lexers and parsers.
Recursive-descent parsers try to hypothesize the general structure of the input string, which means a lot of trial-and-error occurs before the end of the string is reached. This makes them less efficient than bottom-up parsers, which need no such inference engines. The performance difference becomes magnified as the complexity of the grammar increases.
To add to other answers, it is important to realize that besides efficiency, bottom-up parsers can accept significantly more grammars than recursive-descent parsers do. Top-down parsers -whether predictive or not- can only have 1 lookahead token and fail if current token and whatever immediately follows the token can be derived using two different rules. Of course, you could implement the parser to have more lookaheads (e.g. LL(3)), but how far are you willing to push it before it becomes as complex as a bottom-up parser? Bottom-up parsers (LALR specifically) on the other hand, maintain a list of firsts and follows and can handle cases where top-down parsers can't. Of course, computer science is about trade-offs. If you grammar is simple enough, it makes sense to write a top-down parser. If it's complex (such as grammars of most programming languages), then you might have to use a bottom-up parser to successfully accept the input.
I have two guesses, though I doubt that either fully explains it: Top-down parsing can be slow. Recursive-descent parsers may require exponential time to complete their job. That would put severe limitations on the scalability of a compiler which uses a top-down parser. Better tools. If you can express the language in some variant of EBNF, then chances are you can Lex/Yacc your way past a whole lot of tedious code. There don't seem to be as many tools to help automate the task of putting together a top-down parser. And let's face it, grinding out parser code just isn't the fun part of toying with languages.
I never saw a real comparison between top-down and shift-reduce parser : just 2 small programs ran in the same time side-by-side, one using the top-down approach and the over one using the bottom-up approach, each of about ~200 lines of code, able to parse any kind of custom binary operator and mathematical expression, the two sharing the same grammar declaration format, and then possibly adding variables declarations and affectations to show how 'hacks' (non context-free) can be implemented. so, how to speak honestly of something we never did : comparing rigorously the two approach ?