[PATCH] DTC: Remove the need for the GLR Parser.

2007-10-22 Thread Jon Loeliger
Previously, there were a few shift/reduce and reduce/reduce errors in the grammar that were being handled by the not-so-popular GLR Parser technique. Flip a right-recursive stack-abusing rule into a left-recursive stack-friendly rule and clear up three messes in one shot: No more conflicts, no nee

Re: [PATCH] DTC: Remove the need for the GLR Parser.

2007-10-22 Thread David Gibson
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 04:13:54PM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote: > Previously, there were a few shift/reduce and reduce/reduce > errors in the grammar that were being handled by the not-so-popular > GLR Parser technique. I haven't actually heard anyone whinge about glr-parser... > Flip a right-recur

Re: [PATCH] DTC: Remove the need for the GLR Parser.

2007-10-23 Thread Jon Loeliger
So, like, the other day David Gibson mumbled: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 04:13:54PM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote: > > Previously, there were a few shift/reduce and reduce/reduce > > errors in the grammar that were being handled by the not-so-popular > > GLR Parser technique. > > I haven't actually hea

Re: [PATCH] DTC: Remove the need for the GLR Parser.

2007-10-23 Thread Segher Boessenkool
>>> Flip a right-recursive stack-abusing rule into a left-recursive >>> stack-friendly rule and clear up three messes in one shot: No more >>> conflicts, no need for the GLR parser, and friendlier stackness. >> >> Ouch. I'm feeling a bit stupid now, > > Absolutely no need for that. If you haven't

Re: [PATCH] DTC: Remove the need for the GLR Parser.

2007-10-23 Thread Jon Loeliger
So, like, the other day Segher Boessenkool mumbled: > > >> And even without glr-parser, I'm still uncomfortable with the > >> lexer<->parser execution ordering issues with the current > >> /dts-version/ proposal. It may now be true that the order is > >> guaranteed to be correct, but it's still n

Re: [PATCH] DTC: Remove the need for the GLR Parser.

2007-10-23 Thread Jon Loeliger
So, like, the other day Jon Loeliger mumbled: > > > First, a trivial one: I remember leaving this as a right-recursion, > > despite the stack-nastiness, because that way the properties end up in > > the same order as in the source. I think that behaviour is worth > > preserving, but of course we

Re: [PATCH] DTC: Remove the need for the GLR Parser.

2007-10-23 Thread David Gibson
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 04:41:51PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >>> Flip a right-recursive stack-abusing rule into a left-recursive > >>> stack-friendly rule and clear up three messes in one shot: No more > >>> conflicts, no need for the GLR parser, and friendlier stackness. > >> > >> Ouch.

Re: [PATCH] DTC: Remove the need for the GLR Parser.

2007-10-23 Thread David Gibson
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:49:09AM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote: > So, like, the other day Segher Boessenkool mumbled: > > > > >> And even without glr-parser, I'm still uncomfortable with the > > >> lexer<->parser execution ordering issues with the current > > >> /dts-version/ proposal. It may now b

Re: [PATCH] DTC: Remove the need for the GLR Parser.

2007-10-23 Thread David Gibson
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 11:07:39AM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote: > So, like, the other day Jon Loeliger mumbled: > > > > > First, a trivial one: I remember leaving this as a right-recursion, > > > despite the stack-nastiness, because that way the properties end up in > > > the same order as in the so

Re: [PATCH] DTC: Remove the need for the GLR Parser.

2007-10-23 Thread David Gibson
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:24:52AM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote: > So, like, the other day David Gibson mumbled: > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 04:13:54PM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote: [snip] > > I really thought our conflicts > > were somewhere else. Specifically I thought the problem was that we > > need