Amity School of Engineering and Technology

COMPILER CONSTRUCTION
Module III
LR PARSERS
Dr A. K. Jayswal
ASET(CSE)
MTech(CSE)-JNU
PhD(CSE)-JNU
GATE(CS), UGC-NET(CS)
1
Module III:
 Different types of LR Parsers
 Simple LR(0) collection of items
 SLR parsing table
 SLR parsing
 LR(1) collection of items
 CLR parsing table
 CLR parsing
 LALR parsing table
 LALR parsing
2
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Recommended Reading​
Textbooks: ​
• Alfred V. Aho, Monica S. Lam, Ravi Sethi, Jeffrey D. Ullman, “Compilers:
Principles Techniques and Tool”, Second Edition, Pearson Publication, 2007.​
​
• A.A Putambekar, “Compiler Construction”, Technical Publications, 2009. ​
​
Reference Book: ​
• Des Watson, A Practical Approach to Compiler Construction, First Edition, Springer,
2017​

3
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

OBJECTIVES
After completing this section, you will be able to

1.1 Analyze & implement SLR parsing techniques.

1.2 Analyze & implement CLR parsing techniques.

1.3 Analyze & implement LALR parsing techniques.

4
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Module Assessment​
• Quiz (Conceptual and Numerical Based)
​
• Assignment

5
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

LR Parsers
The most powerful shift-reduce parsing (yet efficient) is:

LR parsing is attractive because:

• LR parsing is most general non-backtracking shift-reduce parsing, yet it is still
efficient.
• The class of grammars that can be parsed using LR methods is a proper superset of
the class of grammars that can be parsed with predictive parsers.
LL(1)-Grammars  LR(1)-Grammars
• An LR-parser can detect a syntactic error as soon as it is possible to do so a left-to-
right scan of the input. 6
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

LR Parsers

7
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

LR Parsers

8
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

LR Parsers

9
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

LR Parsers

10
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

LR Parsers

11
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

LR Parsers

12
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

LR Parsers

13
Amity School of Engineering and Technology

14
Amity School of Engineering and Technology

15
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

LR Parsers
Advantages of the LR parser

• Recognize the most programming languages.

• More general than LL parser

• Detect errors during parsing

16
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

LR Parsers
Different types of LR-Parsers

1. SLR – simple LR parser

2. CLR – Canonical LR parser( Most powerful LR parser)
3. LALR – Look-head LR parser(Intermediate LR parser )

SLR, LR and LALR work same (they used the same algorithm), only their parsing tables
are different.

17
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

LR Parsing Algorithm

18
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

A Configuration of LR Parsing Algorithm

A configuration of a LR parsing is:

Sm and ai decides the parser action by consulting the parsing action

table. (Initial Stack contains just So )

A configuration of a LR parsing represents the right sentential form:

X1 ... Xm ai ai+1 ... an $
19
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Actions of A LR-Parser
1. shift s -- shifts the next input symbol and the state s onto the stack
( So X1 S1 ... Xm Sm, ai ai+1 ... an $ )  ( So X1 S1 ... Xm Sm ai s, ai+1 ... an $ )

2. reduce A (or rn where n is a production number)

pop 2|| (=r) items from the stack;
then push A and s where s=goto[sm-r ,A]
( So X1 S1 ... Xm Sm, ai ai+1 ... an $ )  ( So X1 S1 ... Xm-r Sm-r A s, ai ... an $ )

Output is the reducing production reduce A

3. Accept – Parsing successfully completed

4. Error -- Parser detected an error (an empty entry in the action table) 20
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Reduce Action
• pop 2|| (=r) items from the stack; let us assume that  = Y1Y2...Yr
• then push A and s where s=goto[sm-r,A]

( So X1 S1 ... Xm-r Sm-r Y1 Sm-r+1 ...Yr Sm, ai ai+1 ... an $ )

 ( So X1 S1 ... Xm-r Sm-r A s, ai ... an $ )

• In fact, Y1Y2...Yr is a handle.

X1 ... Xm-r A ai ... an $  X1 ... Xm Y1...Yr ai ai+1 ... an $

21
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Constructing SLR Parsing Tables – LR(0) Item

An LR(0) item of a grammar G is a production of G a dot at the some position of the
right side.
Ex: A  aBb Possible LR(0) Items: A  .aBb
(four different possibility) A  a.Bb
A  aB.b
A  aBb.
Sets of LR(0) items will be the states of action and goto table of the SLR parser.

A collection of sets of LR(0) items (the canonical LR(0) collection) is the basis for
constructing SLR parsers.

Augmented Grammar:
G’ is G with a new production rule S’S where S’ is the new starting symbol.
22
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

The Closure Operation

If I is a set of LR(0) items for a grammar G, then closure(I) is the set of LR(0)
items constructed from I by the two rules:

1. Initially, every LR(0) item in I is added to closure(I).

2. If A  .B is in closure(I) and B is a production rule of G; then B.
will be in the closure(I). We will apply this rule until no more new LR(0)
items can be added to closure(I).

23
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

The Closure Operation-Example

.
.
E’  E closure({E’  E}) =

.
E  E+T { E’  E kernel items

.
ET E E+T

.
T  T*F E T

.
TF T T*F

.
F  (E) T F

.
F  id F (E)
F id }

24
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Computation of Closure
function closure ( I )
begin
J := I;
repeat
for each item A  .B in J and each production
B of G such that B. is not in J do
add B. to J
until no more items can be added to J
end

25
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

GOTO Operation
If I is a set of LR(0) items and X is a grammar symbol (terminal or non-terminal), then
goto(I,X) is defined as follows:
If A  .X in I then every item in closure({A  X.}) will be in goto(I,X).
If I is the set of items that are valid for some viable prefix , then goto(I,X) is the set of
items that are valid for the viable prefix X.
Example: I ={ E’  .E, E  .E+T, E  .T,
T  .T*F, T  .F,
F  .(E), F  .id }
goto(I,E) = { E’  E., E  E.+T }
goto(I,T) = { E  T., T  T.*F }
goto(I,F) = {T  F. }
goto(I,() = { F  (.E), E  .E+T, E  .T, T  .T*F, T  .F,
F  .(E), F  .id }
goto(I,id) = { F  id. }
26
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Practice Questions
Ques 1: Consider the grammar S-> Aa| bAc| Bc| bBa, A->d, B->d
Compute closure(I) and goto(I)

Ques2: Consider the grammar S-> AS| b , A->SA|a

Compute closure(I) and goto(I)

27
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Construction of The Canonical LR(0) Collection

• To create the SLR parsing tables for a grammar G, we will create the canonical LR(0)
collection of the grammar G’.

• Algorithm:
C is { closure({S’.S}) }
repeat the followings until no more set of LR(0) items can be added to C.
for each I in C and each grammar symbol X
if goto(I,X) is not empty and not in C
add goto(I,X) to C

• goto function is a DFA on the sets in C.

28
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

The Canonical LR(0) Collection-Example

I0: E’  .E I1: E’  E. I6: E  E+.T I9: E  E+T.
E  .E+T E  E.+T T  .T*F T  T.*F
E  .T T  .F
T  .T*F I2: E  T. F  .(E) I10: T  T*F.
T  .F T  T.*F F  .id
F  .(E)
F  .id I3: T  F.I7: T  T*.F I11: F  (E).
F  .(E)
I4: F  (.E) F  .id
E  .E+T
E  .T I8: F  (E.)
T  .T*F E  E.+T
T  .F
F  .(E)
F  .id
I5: F  id. 29
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Transition Diagram (DFA) of Goto Function

30
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Constructing SLR Parsing Table

(of an augumented grammar G’)
1. Construct the canonical collection of sets of LR(0) items for G’. C{I0,...,In}
2. Create the parsing action table as follows
• If a is a terminal, A.a in Ii and goto(Ii,a)=Ij then action[i,a] is shift j.
• If A. is in Ii , then action[i,a] is reduce A for all a in FOLLOW(A)
where AS’.
• If S’S. is in Ii , then action[i,$] is accept.
• If any conflicting actions generated by these rules, the grammar is not SLR(1).
3. Create the parsing goto table
• for all non-terminals A, if goto(Ii,A)=Ij then goto[i,A]=j
4. All entries not defined by (2) and (3) are errors.
5. Initial state of the parser contains S’.S
31
SLR(1) Parsing Table

32
Parsing a string w from SLR(1) Parsing Table

33
(SLR) Parsing Tables for Expression Grammar

34
Actions of (S)LR-Parser -- Example

35
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Practice Question
Ques 1: Consider the following grammar
E-> E+ T | T
T-> TF | F
F-> F * | a | b
Construct the SLR parsing table for this grammar.
Ques 2: Construct SLR Parsing table for the grammar
S-> L= R
S-> R
L->*R
L-> id
R-> L

36
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

SLR(1) Grammar
An LR parser using SLR(1) parsing tables for a grammar G is called as the SLR(1)
parser for G.

If a grammar G has an SLR(1) parsing table, it is called SLR(1) grammar (or SLR
grammar in short).

Every SLR grammar is unambiguous, but every unambiguous grammar is not a SLR
grammar.

37
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

shift/reduce and reduce/reduce conflicts

If a state does not know whether it will make a shift operation or reduction for a
terminal, we say that there is a shift/reduce conflict.

If a state does not know whether it will make a reduction operation using the
production rule i or j for a terminal, we say that there is a reduce/reduce conflict.

If the SLR parsing table of a grammar G has a conflict, we say that that grammar is
not SLR grammar.

38
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Conflict Example-1

39
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Conflict Example-2

40
Amity School of Engineering and Technology

41
Amity School of Engineering and Technology

42
Amity School of Engineering and Technology

43
Amity School of Engineering and Technology

44
Amity School of Engineering and Technology

45
Amity School of Engineering and Technology

46
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

CLR(1) Parsing Table

47
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

LR(1) Item
• To avoid some of invalid reductions, the states need to carry more information.
• Extra information is put into a state by including a terminal symbol as a second
component in an item.

• A LR(1) item is:

A  .,a where a is the look-head of the LR(1) item
(a is a terminal or end-marker.)
• Such an object is called LR(1) item.
 1 refers to the length of the second component
 The lookahead has no effect in an item of the form [A  .,a], where  is not .
 But an item of the form [A  .,a] calls for a reduction by A   only if the next
input symbol is a.
 The set of such a’s will be a subset of FOLLOW(A), but it could be a proper
subset. 48
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

LR(1) Item(cont.)
When  ( in the LR(1) item A  .,a ) is not empty, the look-head does not have any
affect.
When  is empty (A  .,a ), we do the reduction by A only if the next input
symbol is a (not for any terminal in FOLLOW(A)).

A state will contain A  .,a1 where {a1,...,an}  FOLLOW(A)

...
A  .,an

49
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Canonical Collection of Sets of LR(1) Items

• The construction of the canonical collection of the sets of LR(1) items are
similar to the construction of the canonical collection of the sets of LR(0) items,
except that closure and goto operations work a little bit different.

closure(I) is: ( where I is a set of LR(1) items)

 every LR(1) item in I is in closure(I)
 if A.B,a in closure(I) and B is a production rule of G;
then B.,b will be in the closure(I) for each terminal b in FIRST(a) .

50
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Goto Operation
• If I is a set of LR(1) items and X is a grammar symbol (terminal or
non-terminal), then goto(I,X) is defined as follows:
 If A  .X,a in I
then every item in closure({A  X.,a}) will be in goto(I,X).

51
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Construction of The Canonical LR(1) Collection

• Algorithm:
C is { closure({S’.S,$}) }
repeat the followings until no more set of LR(1) items can be added
to C.
for each I in C and each grammar symbol X
if goto(I,X) is not empty and not in C
add goto(I,X) to C

• Goto function is a DFA on the sets in C.

52
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Canonical LR(1) Collection -- Example

53
Amity School of Engineering and Technology

54
Amity School of Engineering and Technology

55
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

S’   S, $ I1
S   C C, $ S (S’  S  , $
C   c C, c/d
C   d, c/d
S  C  C, $ I5
C C   c C, $ C S  C C , $
C   d, $
I2 c I6
C  c  C, $
c C   c C, $ I9
C   d, $
C  cC , $
I7
d C  d , $
c
C  c  C, c/d
C   c C, c/d C I8
c I3 C   d, c/d C  c C , c/d

I4 d
56
C  d , c/d
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

An Example

57
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

(CLR) Parsing Tables for the above Grammar

58
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

The Core of LR(1) Items

• The core of a set of LR(1) Items is the set of their first components (i.e., LR(0)
items)
• The core of the set of LR(1) items
{ (C  c  C, c/d),
(C   c C, c/d),
(C   d, c/d) }
is { C  c  C,
C   c C,
Cd}

59
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Construction of LR(1) Parsing Tables

1. Construct the canonical collection of sets of LR(1) items for G’.
C{I0,...,In}

2. Create the parsing action table as follows

• If a is a terminal, A.a,b in Ii and goto(Ii,a)=Ij then action[i,a] is shift j.
• If A.,a is in Ii , then action[i,a] is reduce A where AS’.
• If S’S.,$ is in Ii , then action[i,$] is accept.
• If any conflicting actions generated by these rules, the grammar is not LR(1).

3. Create the parsing goto table

• for all non-terminals A, if goto(Ii,A)=Ij then goto[i,A]=j

4. All entries not defined by (2) and (3) are errors.

60
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

LALR Parsing Tables

1. LALR stands for Lookahead LR.

2. LALR parsers are often used in practice because LALR parsing tables are
smaller than LR(1) parsing tables.

3. The number of states in SLR and LALR parsing tables for a grammar G are equal.

4. But LALR parsers recognize more grammars than SLR parsers.

5. yacc creates a LALR parser for the given grammar.

6. A state of LALR parser will be again a set of LR(1) items.

61
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Creating LALR Parsing Tables

Canonical LR(1) Parser  LALR Parser

shrink # of states

• This shrink process may introduce a reduce/reduce conflict in the resulting

LALR parser (so the grammar is NOT LALR)
• But, this shrik process does not produce a shift/reduce conflict.

62
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

The Core of A Set of LR(1) Items

The core of a set of LR(1) items is the set of its first component.
Ex: S  L.=R,$  S  L.=R Core
R  L.,$ R  L.

We will find the states (sets of LR(1) items) in a canonical LR(1) parser with same
cores. Then we will merge them as a single state.
I1:L  id.,= A new state: I12: L  id.,=
 L  id.,$
I2:L  id.,$ have same core, merge them

We will do this for all states of a canonical LR(1) parser to get the states of the LALR
parser.
In fact, the number of the states of the LALR parser for a grammar will be equal to
the number of states of the SLR parser for that grammar.
63
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Creation of LALR Parsing Tables

1. Create the canonical LR(1) collection of the sets of LR(1) items for the given
grammar.
2. For each core present; find all sets having that same core; replace those sets
having same cores with a single set which is their union.
C={I0,...,In}  C’={J1,...,Jm} where m  n

3. Create the parsing tables (action and goto tables) same as the construction of
the parsing tables of LR(1) parser.
1. Note that: If J=I1  ...  Ik since I1,...,Ik have same cores
 cores of goto(I1,X),...,goto(I2,X) must be same.
2. So, goto(J,X)=K where K is the union of all sets of items having same cores as
goto(I1,X).

4. If no conflict is introduced, the grammar is LALR(1) grammar. (We may only

64
introduce reduce/reduce conflicts; we cannot introduce a shift/reduce conflict)
Amity School of Engineering and Technology

65
Amity School of Engineering and Technology

66
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

LALR Parse Table

c d $ S C
0 s36 s47 1 2
1 acc
2 s36 s47 5
36 s36 s47 89
47 r3 r3 r3
5 r1
89 r2 r2 r2

67
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Shift/Reduce Conflict
• We say that we cannot introduce a shift/reduce conflict during the shrink
process for the creation of the states of a LALR parser.
• Assume that we can introduce a shift/reduce conflict. In this case, a state of LALR
parser must have:
A  .,a and B  .a,b
• This means that a state of the canonical LR(1) parser must have:
A  .,a and B  .a,c
But, this state has also a shift/reduce conflict. i.e. The original canonical LR(1)
parser has a conflict.
(Reason for this, the shift operation does not depend on lookaheads)

68
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Reduce/Reduce Conflict
• But, we may introduce a reduce/reduce conflict during the shrink process for the
creation of the states of a LALR parser.

I1 : A  .,a I2: A  .,b

B  .,b B  .,c

I12: A  .,a/b  reduce/reduce conflict
B  .,b/c

69
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Using Ambiguous Grammars

• All grammars used in the construction of LR-parsing tables must be un-ambiguous.
• Can we create LR-parsing tables for ambiguous grammars ?
– Yes, but they will have conflicts.
– We can resolve these conflicts in favor of one of them to disambiguate the grammar.
– At the end, we will have again an unambiguous grammar.
• Why we want to use an ambiguous grammar?
– Some of the ambiguous grammars are much natural, and a corresponding
unambiguous grammar can be very complex.
– Usage of an ambiguous grammar may eliminate unnecessary reductions.
• Ex.
E  E+T | T
E  E+E | E*E | (E) | id  T  T*F | F
F  (E) | id 70
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Sets of LR(0) Items for Ambiguous Grammar

71
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

SLR-Parsing Tables for Ambiguous Grammar

72
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

SLR-Parsing Tables for Ambiguous Grammar

73
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

SLR-Parsing Tables for Ambiguous Grammar

74
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Error Recovery in LR Parsing

• An LR parser will detect an error when it consults the parsing action table and
finds an error entry. All empty entries in the action table are error entries.
• Errors are never detected by consulting the goto table.
• An LR parser will announce error as soon as there is no valid continuation for
the scanned portion of the input.
• A canonical LR parser (LR(1) parser) will never make even a single reduction
before announcing an error.
• The SLR and LALR parsers may make several reductions before announcing an
error.
But, all LR parsers (LR(1), LALR and SLR parsers) will never shift an erroneous
input symbol onto the stack.

75
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Panic Mode Error Recovery in LR Parsing

• Scan down the stack until a state s with a goto on a particular nonterminal A is
found. (Get rid of everything from the stack before this state s).
• Discard zero or more input symbols until a symbol a is found that can
legitimately follow A.
The symbol a is simply in FOLLOW(A), but this may not work for all situations.
• The parser stacks the nonterminal A and the state goto[s,A], and it resumes the
normal parsing.
• This nonterminal A is normally is a basic programming block (there can be more
than one choice for A).
stmt, expr, block, ...

76
 Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Phrase Mode Error Recovery in LR Parsing

• Each empty entry in the action table is marked with a specific error routine.
• An error routine reflects the error that the user most likely will make in that
case.
• An error routine inserts the symbols into the stack or the input (or it deletes the
symbols from the stack and the input, or it can do both insertion and deletion).
missing operand
unbalanced right parenthesis

77
Amity School of Engineering and Technology

78