By concept/function/implementation, what are the differences between compilers and parsers?
A compiler is often made up of several components, one of which is a parser.
A common set of components in a compiler is:
Lexer - break the program up into words.
Parser - check that the syntax of the sentences are correct.
Semantic Analysis - check that the sentences make sense.
Optimizer - edit the sentences for brevity.
Code generator - output something with equivalent semantic meaning using another vocabulary.
To add a little bit:
As mentioned elsewhere, small C is a recursive decent compiler that generated code as it parsed. Basically syntactical analysis, semantic analysis, and code generation in one pass. As I recall, it also lexed in the parser.
A long time ago, I wrote a C compiler (actually several: the Introl-C family for microcontrollers) that used recursive descent and did syntax and semantic checking during the parse and produced a tree representation of the program from which code was generated.
Today, I'm working on a compiler that does source -> tokens -> AST -> IR -> code, pretty much as I described above.
A parser just reads a text into an internal, more abstract representation, often a tree or graph of some sort.
A compiler translates such an internal representation into another format. Most often this means converting source code into executable programs. But the target doesn't have to be machine code. It can be another programming language as well; the compiler would still be a compiler. Obviously a compiler needs a parser to actually read its input.
Compiler always have a parser inside. Parser just process the language and return the tree representation of it, compiler generate something from that tree, actual machine codes or another language.
A parser is one element of a compiler.
Are you looking for the differences between an interpreter and a compiler?
A parser takes in raw-data and parses it into a tree structure. This syntax-tree is then passed on to generator, which will turn it into whatever it is supposed to generate.
So, a parser is a part of a compiler.
In general, parser is a part of the compiler, but compiler is designed to convert the received script generally into machine-readable code or sometimes into another language.
A compiler is a special type of computer program that translates a human readable text file into a form that the computer can more easily understand. At its most basic level, a computer can only understand two things, a 1 and a 0. At this level, a human will operate very slowly and find the information contained in the long string of 1s and 0s incomprehensible. A compiler is a computer program that bridges this gap.
A parser is a piece of software that evaluates the syntax of a script when it is executed on a web server. For scripting languages used on the web, the parser works like a compiler might work in other types of application development environments.Parsers are commonly used in script development because they can evaluate code when the script is executed and do not require that the code be compiled first.
Related
I was entirely amazed by how Coq's parser is implemented. e.g.
https://softwarefoundations.cis.upenn.edu/lf-current/Imp.html#lab347
It's so crazy that the parser seems ok to take any lexeme by giving notation command and subsequent parser is able to parse any expression as it is. So what it means is the grammar must be context sensitive. But this is so flexible that it absolutely goes beyond my comprehension.
Any pointers on how this kind of parser is theoretically feasible? How should it work? Any materials or knowledge would work. I just try to learn about this type of parser in general. Thanks.
Please do not ask me to read Coq's source myself. I want to check the idea in general but not a specific implementation.
Indeed, this notation system is very powerful and it was probably one of the reasons of Coq's success. In practice, this is a source of much complication in the source code. I think that #ejgallego should be able to tell you more about it but here is a quick explanation:
At the beginning, Coq's documents were evaluated sentence by sentence (sentences are separated by dots) by coqtop. Some commands can define notations and these modify the parsing rules when they are evaluated. Thus, later sentences are evaluated with a slightly different parser.
Since version 8.5, there is also a mechanism (the STM) to evaluate a document fully (many sentences in parallel) but there is some special mechanism for handling these notation commands (basically you have to wait for these to be evaluated before you can continue parsing and evaluating the rest of the document).
Thus, contrary to a normal programming language, where the compiler will take a document, pass it through the lexer, then the parser (parse the full document in one go), and then have an AST to give to the typer or other later stages, in Coq each command is parsed and evaluated separately. Thus, there is no need to resort to complex contextual grammars...
I'll drop my two cents to complement #Zimmi48's excellent answer.
Coq indeed features an extensible parser, which TTBOMK is mainly the work of Hugo Herbelin, built on the CAMLP4/CAMLP5 extensible parsing system by Daniel de Rauglaudre. Both are the canonical sources for information about the parser, I'll try to summarize what I know but note indeed that my experience with the system is short.
The CAMLPX system basically supports any LL1 grammar. Coq exposes to the user the whole set of grammar rules, allowing the user to redefine them. This is the base mechanism on which extensible grammars are built. Notations are compiled into parsing rules in the Metasyntax module, and unfolded in a latter post-processing phase. And that really is AFAICT.
The system itself hasn't changed much in the whole 8.x series, #Zimmi48's comments are more related to the internal processing of commands after parsing. I recently learned that Coq v7 had an even more powerful system for modifying the parser.
In words of Hugo Herbelin "the art of extensible parsing is a delicate one" and indeed it is, but Coq's achieved a pretty great implementation of it.
I am trying to create a simple script for a resource API. I have a resource API mainly creates game resources in a structured manner. What I want is dealing with this API without creating c++ programs each time I want a resource. So we (me and my instructor from uni) decided to create a simple script to create/edit resource files without compiling every time. There are also some other irrelevant factors that I need a command line interface rather than a GUI program.
Anyway, here is script sample:
<path>.<command> -<options>
/Graphics[3].add "blabla.png"
I didn't design this script language, the owner of API did. The part before '.' as you can guess is the path and part after '.' is actual command and some options, flags etc. As a first step, I tried to create grammar of left part because I thought I could use it while searching info about lexical analyzers and parser. The problem is I am inexperienced when it comes to parsing and programming languages and I am not sure if it's correct or not. Here is some more examples and grammar of left side.
dir -> '/' | '/' path
path -> object '/' path | object
object -> number | string '[' number ']'
Notation if this grammar can be a mess, I don't know. There is 5 different possibilities, they are:
String
"String"
Number
String[Number]
"String"[Number]
It has to start with '/' symbol and if it's the only symbol, I will accept it as Root.
Now my problem is how can I lexically analyze this script? Is there a special method? What should my lexical analyzer do and do not(I read some lexical analysers also do syntactic analysis up to a point). Do you think grammar, etc. is technically appropriate? What kind of parsing method I should use(Recursive Descent, LL etc.)? I am trying to make it technically appropriate piece of work. It's not commercial so I have time thus I can learn lexical analysis and parsing better. I don't want to use a parser library.
What should my lexical analyzer do and not do?
It should:
recognize tokens
ignore ignorable whitespace and comments (if there are such things)
optionally, keep track of source location in order to produce meaningful error messages.
It should not attempt to parse the input, although that will be very tempting with such a simple language.
From what I can see, you have the following tokens:
punctuation: /, ., linear-white-space, new-line
numbers
unquoted strings (often called "atoms" or "ids")
quoted strings (possibly the same token type as unquoted strings)
I'm not sure what the syntax for -options is, but that might include more possibilities.
Choosing to return linear-white-space (that is, a sequence consisting only of tabs and spaces) as a token is somewhat questionable; it complicates the grammar considerably, particularly since there are probably places where white-space is ignorable, such as the beginning and end of a line. But I have the intuition that you do not want to allow whitespace inside of a path and that you plan to require it between the command name and its arguments. That is, you want to prohibit:
/left /right[3] .whimper "hello, world"
/left/right[3].whimper"hello, world"
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you're happy to accept both. That would be simpler, because if you accept both, then you can just ignore linear-whitespace altogether.
By the way, experience has shown that using new-line to separate commands can be awkward; sooner or later you will need to break a command into two lines in order to avoid having to buy an extra monitor to see the entire line. The convention (used by bash and the C preprocessor, amongst others) of putting a \ as the last character on a line to be continued is possible, but can lead to annoying bugs (like having an invisible space following the \ and thus preventing it from really continuing the line).
From here down is 100% personal opinion, offered for free. So take it for what its worth.
I am trying to make it technically appropriate piece of work. It's not commercial so I have time thus I can learn lexical analysis and parsing better. I don't want to use a parser library.
There is a contradiction here, in my opinion. Or perhaps two contradictions.
A technically appropriate piece of work would use standard tools; at least a lexical generator and probably a parser generator. It would do that because, properly used, the lexical and grammatical descriptions provided to the tools document precisely the actual language, and the tools guarantee that the desired language is what is actually recognized. Writing ad hoc code, even simple lexical recognizers and recursive descent parsers, for all that it can be elegant, is less self-documenting, less maintainable, and provides fewer guarantees of correctness. Consequently, best practice is "use standard tools".
Secondly, I disagree with your instructor (if I understand their proposal correctly, based on your comments) that writing ad hoc lexers and parsers aids in understanding lexical and parsing theory. In fact, it may be counterproductive. Bottom-up parsing, which is incredibly elegant both theoretically and practically, is almost impossible to write by hand and totally impossible to read. Consequently, many programmers prefer to use recursive-descent or Pratt parsers, because they understand the code. However, such parsers are not as powerful as a bottom-up parser (particularly GLR or Earley parsers, which are fully general), and their use leads to unnecessary grammatical compromises.
You don't need to write a regular expression library to understand regular expressions. The libraries abstract away the awkward implementation details (and there are lots of them, and they really are awkward) and let you concentrate on the essence of creating and using regular expressions.
In the same way, you do not need to write a compiler in order to understand how to program in C. After you have a good basis in C, you can improve your understanding (maybe) by understanding how it translates into machine code, but unless you plan a career in compiler writing, knowing the details of obscure optimization algorithms are not going to make you a better programmer. Or, at least, they're not first on your agenda.
Similarly, once you really understand regular expressions, you might find writing a library interesting. Or not -- you might find it incredibly frustrating and give up after a couple of months of hard work. Either way, you will appreciate existing libraries more. But learn to use the existing libraries first.
And the same with parser generators. If you want to learn how to translate an idea for a programming language into something precise and implementable, learn how to use a parser generator. Only after you have mastered the theory of parsing should you even think of focusing on low-level implementations.
I encountered a problem while doing my student research project. I'm an electrical engineering student, but my project has somewhat to do with theoretical computer science: I need to parse a lot of pascal sourcecode-files for typedefinitions and constants and visualize all occurrences. The typedefinitions are spread recursively over various files, i.e. there is type a = byte in file x, in file y, there is a record (struct) b, that contains type a and then there is even a type c in file z that is an array of type b.
My idea so far was to learn about compiler construction, since the compiler has to resolve all typedefinitions and break them down to the elemental types.
So, I've read about compiler construction in two books (one of which is even written by the pascal inventor), but I'm lacking so many basics of theoretical computer science that it took me one week alone to work my way halfway through. What I've learned so far is that for achieving my goal, lexer and parser should be sufficient. Since this software is only a really smart part of the whole project, I can't spend so much time with it, so I started experimenting with flex and later with antlr.
My hope was, that parsing for typedefinitions only was such an easy task, that I could manage to do it with only using a scanner and let it do some parser's work: The pascal-files consist of 5 main-parts, each one being optional: A header with comments, a const-section, a type-section, a var-section and (in least cases) a code-section. Each section has a start-identifier but no clear end-identifier. So I started searching for the start of the type- and const-section (TYPE, CONST), discarding everything else. In flex, this is fairly easy, because it allows "start conditions". They can be used as various states like "INITIAL", "TYPE-SECTION", "CONST-SECTION" and "COMMENT" with different rules for each state. I wanted to get back a string from the scanner with following syntax " = ". There was one thing that made this task difficult: Some type contain comments like in this example: AuEingangsBool_t {PCMON} = MAX_AuEingangsFeld;. The scanner can not extract such type-definition with a regular expression.
My next step was to do it properly with scanner AND parser, so I searched for a parsergenerator and found antlr. Since I write the tool in C# anyway, I decided to use its scannergenerator, too, so that I do not have to communicate between different programs. Now I encountered following Problem: AFAIK, antlr does not support "start conditions" as flex do. That means, I have to scan the whole file (okay, comments still get discarded) and get a lot of unneccessary (and wrong) tokens. Because I don't use rules for the whole pascal grammar, the scanner would identify most keywords of the pascal syntax as user-identifiers and the parser would nag about all those series of tokens, that do not fit to type- and constant-defintions
Now, finally my question(s): Can anyone of you tell me, which approach leads anywhere for my project? Is there a possibility to scan only parts of the source-files with antlr? Or do I have to connect flex with antlr for that purpose? Can I tell antlr's parser to ignore every token that is not in the const- or type-section? Are those tools too powerful for my task and should I write own routines instead?
You'd be better off to find a compiler for Pascal, and simply modify to report the information you want. Presumably there is such a compiler for your Pascal, and often the source code for such compilers is available.
Otherwise you essentially need to build a parser. Building lexer, and then hacking around with the resulting lexemes, is essentially building a bad parser by ad hoc methods. ANTLR is a good way to go; you can define the lexemes (including means to pick up and ignore comments) pretty easily, especially for older dialects of Pascal. You'll need good BNF rules for the type information that you want, and translate those rules to the parser generator. What you can do to minimize work, is to cheat on rules for the parts of the language you don't care about. For instance, you could write an accurate subgrammar for assignment statements. Since you don't care about them, you can write a sloppy subgrammar that treats assignment statements as anything that begins with an identifier, is followed by arbitrary other tokens, and ends with semicolon. This kind of a grammar is called an "island grammar"; it is only accurate where it needs to be accurate.
I don't know about the recursive bit. Is there a reason you can't just process each file separately? The answer may depend on what information you want to know about each type declaration, and if you go deep enough, you may need a symbol table as well as an island parser. Parser generators offer you no help for this.
First, there can be type and const blocks within other blocks (procedures, in later Delphi versions also classes).
Moreover, I'm not entirely sure that you can actually simply scan for a const token, and then start parsing. Const is also used for other purposes in most common (Borland) Pascal dialects. Some keywords can be reused in a different context, and if you don't parse the global blockstructure, and only look for const and type in specific places you will erroneously start parsing there.
A base problem of course is the comments. Scanners cut out comments as early as possible, and don't regard them further. You probably have to setup the scanner so that comments are attached to the adjacent tokens as field (associate with token before or save them up till a certain token follows).
As far antlr vs flex, no clue. The only parsergenerator I have some minor experience in parsing Pascal with is Coco/R (a parsergenerator popular by Wirthians), but in general I (and many pascalians) prefer handcoded.
Is such type of an error produced during type checking or when input is being parsed?
Under what type should the error be addressed?
The way I see it it is a semantic error, because your language parses just fine even though your are using an identifier which you haven't previously bound--i.e. syntactic analysis only checks the program for well-formed-ness. Semantic analysis actually checks that your program has a valid meaning--e.g. bindings, scoping or typing. As #pst said you can do scope checking during parsing, but this is an implementation detail. AFAIK old compilers used to do this to save some time and space, but I think today such an approach is questionable if you don't have some hard performance/memory constraints.
The program conforms to the language grammar, so it is syntactically correct. A language grammar doesn't contain any statements like 'the identifier must be declared', and indeed doesn't have any way of doing so. An attempt to build a two-level grammar along these lines failed spectacularly in the Algol-68 project, and it has not been attempted since to my knowledge.
The meaning, if any, of each is a semantic issue. Frank deRemer called issues like this 'static semantics'.
In my opinion, this is not strictly a syntax error - nor a semantic one. If I were to implement this for a statically typed, compiled language (like C or C++), then I would not put the check into the parser (because the parser is practically incapable of checking for this mistake), rather into the code generator (the part of the compiler that walks the abstract syntax tree and turns it into assembly code). So in my opinion, it lies between syntax and semantic errors: it's a syntax-related error that can only be checked by performing semantic analysis on the code.
If we consider a primitive scripting language however, where the AST is directly executed (without compilation to bytecode and without JIT), then it's the evaluator/executor function itself that walks the AST and finds the undeclared variable - in this case, it will be a runtime error. The difference lies between the "AST_walk()" routine being in different parts of the program lifecycle (compilation time and runtime), should the language be a scripting or a compiled one.
In the case of languages -- and there are many -- which require identifiers to be declared, a program with undeclared identifiers is ill-formed and thus a missing declaration is clearly a syntax error.
The usual way to deal with this is to incorporate information about symbols in a symbol table, so that the parse can use this information.
Here are a few examples of how identifier type affects parsing:
C / C++
A classic case:
(a)-b;
Depending on a, that's either a cast or a subtraction:
#include <stdio.h>
#if TYPEDEF
typedef double a;
#else
double a = 3.0;
#endif
int main() {
int b = 3;
printf("%g\n", (a)-b);
return 0;
}
Consequently, if a hadn't been declared at all, the compiler must reject the program as syntactically ill-formed (and that is precisely the word the standard uses.)
XML
This one is simple:
<block>Hello, world</blob>
That's ill-formed XML, but it cannot be detected with a CFG. (Nonetheless, all XML parsers will correctly reject it as ill-formed.) In the case of HTML/SGML, where end-tags may be omitted under some well-defined circumstances, parsing is trickier but nonetheless deterministic; again, the precise declaration of a tag will determine the parse of a valid input, and it's easy to come up with inputs which parse differently depending on declaration.
English
OK, not a programming language. I have lots of other programming language examples, but I thought this one might trigger some other intuitions.
Consider the two grammatically correct sentences:
The sheep is in the meadow.
The sheep are in the meadow.
Now, what about:
The cow is in the meadow.
(*) The cow are in the meadow.
The second sentence is intelligible, albeit ambiguous (is the noun or the verb wrong?) but it is certainly not grammatically correct. But in order to know that (and other similar examples), we have to know that sheep has an unmarked plural. Indeed, many animals have unmarked plurals, so I recognize all the following as grammatical:
The caribou are in the meadow.
The antelope are in the meadow.
The buffalo are in the meadow.
But definitely not:
(*) The mouse are in the meadow.
(*) The bird are in the meadow.
etc.
It seems that there is a common misconception that because the syntactic analyzer uses a context free grammar parser, that syntactic analysis is restricted to parsing a context free grammar. This is simply not true.
In the case of C (and family), the syntax analyzer uses a symbol table to help it parse. In the case of XML, it uses the tag stack, and in the case of generalize SGML (including HTML) it also uses tag declarations. Consequently, the syntax analyzer considered as a whole is more powerful than the CFG, which is just a part of the analysis.
The fact that a given program passes the syntax analysis does not mean that it is semantically correct. For example, the syntax analyser needs to know whether a is a type or not in order to correctly parse (a)-b, but it does not need to know whether the cast is in fact possible, in the case that it a is a type, or that a and b can meaningfully be subtracted, in the case that a is a variable. These verifications can happen during type analysis after the parse tree is built, but they are still compile-time errors.
I’m recently writing a small programming language, and have finished writing its parser. I want to write an automated test for the parser (that its result is an abstract syntax tree), but I’m not sure which way is better.
First what I tried is just to serialize AST to S-expression text and compare it to the expected output text I wrote by hand, but it has some problems:
There are trivial meaningless differences between a serialized text and the expected output like whitespaces. For example, there is no difference between:
(attribute (symbol str) (symbol length))
(that is serialized) and:
(attribute (symbol str)
(symbol length))
(that is handwritten by me) in their meanings, but string comparison distincts them of course. Okay, I could resolve it by normalization.
When a test fails, it doesn’t show the difference between actual tree and expected tree concisely. I want to show only a difference node, not whole tree.
Second what I tried is to write S-expression parser and compare AST that parser (to be tested) generates to AST that S-expression parser (that I just implemented) generates from the handwritten expected output. However I realized that S-expression have to be tested also and it could be really nonsense.
I wonder what is the typical and easy way to test the parser.
PS. I am using Java, and dont’t want any dependencies to third-party libraries.
Providing you are looking for a completely automated and extensible unit testing framework for your parser I'd recommend the following approach:
Incorrect input
Create a set of samples of incorrect inputs. Then feed the parse with each of them making sure the parser rejects them. I's a good idea to provide metadata for each test case that defines the expected output — the specific error code / message the parser is supposed to produce.
Correct input
As in the previous case, create a set of samples representing various correct inputs. Besides the simple validation that the parser accepts all inputs, there's still the problem of validating that the actual Abstract Syntax Tree makes sense.
To address this problem I'd do the following: Describing the expected AST for each test case in some well-known format that can be safely parsed — deserialized into the actual in-memory AST structures — by a 3rd party parser considered bug-free (for your case). The natural choice is XML since most languages / programming frameworks cover XML support and provide the respective (de)serialization facilities. The best solution would be to deserialize right into the AST node types. Since convenient visual editing tools for XML exist it's feasible to construct even large test cases.
Then I'd construct an AST comparer using the visitor pattern which pair-up the two ASTs and compare both nodes in each pair for equality. However, equality is a per-AST-node-type specific operation.
Notes:
This approach would work with most unit-testing frameworks like JUnit.
AST to XML serialization is a welcome tool for debugging the compiler.
The visitor pattern implementation can easily serve as the backbone for multiple processing stages within the compiler.
There are compiler test suites freely available that can provide some inspiration to your project — see for example the Ada Conformity Assesment Test Suite for the Ada programming language, although this test suite deals with higher-level testing, not just parser testing.
Here's what. A grammar defines a language. The language is the set of string that the grammar generates, or that a parser for the grammar accepts.
Given that, more than testing if the ASTs seem right, it's important to test that the parser accepts strings intended to be in the language and rejects strings that in your mind shouldn't belong to it.
In that sense, a simple accept or reject (bonus point for input position for the rejection) is enough to build a nice and large set of test cases.
Examples:
()
(a)
((((((((((a))))))))))
((((((((((a)))))))))
(a (a (a (a (a (a (b)))))))
(((((((b) a) a) a) a) a) a)
(((((((b a) a) a) a) a) a)
((a)(a)(a)(a))
((a)(a a)(a))
(())
(()())
((()())(()())(()()))
((()())()()(()()))
...