Register

compiler grammar

• retagged by
496 views

1 Answer

2 votes
2 votes

After some googling, I found this grammar to be LL(1) but not LALR

S -> (X | E] | F)
X -> E) | F]
E -> A
F -> A
A -> ε

LALR fails because there is reduce reduce conflicts in E and F productions.

With LL(1), decision is made based on the FIRST set of alternatives where ')' and ']' falls in different set of alternatives.

Credits: stackoverflow

User Avatar
Voting & Accepting an answer helps improve the community
← PreviousNext →
← Previous in categoryNext in category →

Related questions

0 votes
0 votes
1 answer
1
GateAspirant999 asked Dec 10, 2016
602 views
Is this grammar LL1, LR0, SLR1, LALR1, CLR1?
$S\rightarrow (x$ $\text{ }| E]$ $\text{ }| F)$ $X\rightarrow E)$ $\text{ }| F]$ $E\rightarrow A$ $F\rightarrow A$ $A\rightarrow \lambda$
$S\rightarrow (x$$\text{ }| E]$$\text{ }| F)$$X\rightarrow E)$$\text{ }| F]$$E\rightarrow A$$F\rightarrow A$$A\rightarrow \lambda$
User Avatar
1 votes
1 votes
1 answer
2
learner_geek asked Aug 2, 2017
344 views
Compiler parser
is this given diagram correct or incorrect if incorrect then please correct it .
is this given diagram correct or incorrect if incorrect then please correct it .
User Avatar
2 votes
2 votes
1 answer
3
sripo asked Nov 10, 2018
3,240 views
If grammar is not LL(1) then it can never be CLR(1) or LALR(1)?
Can you give an example which is not LL(1) but is CLR(1)
Can you give an example which is not LL(1) but is CLR(1)
User Avatar
0 votes
0 votes
3 answers
4
Parshu gate asked Dec 5, 2017
1,567 views
Type of grammar
Why isn't it LL(1) ?
Why isn't it LL(1) ?
User Avatar
Link Copied!