Below is a a Bison grammar which illustrates my problem. The actual grammar that I'm using is more complicated.
%glr-parser
%%
s : e | p '=' s;
p : fp | p ',' fp;
fp : 'x';
e : te | e ';' te;
te : fe | te ',' fe;
fe : 'x';
Some examples of input would be:
x
x = x
x,x = x,x
x,x = x;x
x,x,x = x,x;x,x
x = x,x = x;x
What I'm after is for the x's on the left side of an '=' to be parsed differently than those on the right. However, the set of legal "expressions" which may appear on the right of an '='-sign is larger than those on the left (because of the ';').
Bison prints the message (input file was test.y):
test.y: conflicts: 1 reduce/reduce.
There must be some way around this problem. In C, you have a similar situation. The program below passes through gcc with no errors.
int main(void) {
int x;
int *px;
x;
*px;
*px = x = 1;
}
In this case, the 'px' and 'x' get treated differently depending on whether they appear to the left or right of an '='-sign.
You're using %glr-parser, so there's no need to "fix" the reduce/reduce conflict. Bison just tells you there is one, so that you know you grammar might be ambiguous, so you might need to add ambiguity resolution with %dprec or %merge directives. But in your case, the grammar is not ambiguous, so you don't need to do anything.
A conflict is NOT an error, its just an indication that your grammar is not LALR(1).
The reduce-reduce conflict in your grammar comes from the context:
... = ... x ,
At this point, the parser has to decide whether x is an fe or an fp, and it cannot know with one symbol lookahead. Indeed, it cannot know with any finite lookahead, you could have any number of repetitions of x , following that point without encountering a =, ; or the end of the input, any of which would reveal the answer.
This is not quite the same as the C issue, which can be resolved with single symbol lookahead. However, the C example is a classic illustration of why SLR(1) grammars are less powerful than LALR(1) grammars -- it's used for that purpose in the dragon book -- and a similarly problematic grammar is an example of the difference between LALR(1) and LR(1); it can be found in the bison manual (here):
def: param_spec return_spec ',';
param_spec: type | name_list ':' type;
return_spec: type | name ':' type;
type: "id";
name: "id";
name_list: name | name ',' name_list;
(The bison manual explains how to resolve this issue for LALR(1) grammars, although using a GLR grammar is always a possibility.)
The key to resolving such conflicts without using a GLR grammar is to avoid forcing the parser to make premature decisions.
For example, it is traditional to distinguish syntactically between lvalues and rvalues, and some languages continue to do so. C and C++ do not, however; and this turns out to be an extremely powerful feature in C++ because it allows the definition of functions which can act as lvalues.
In C, I think it's just to simplify the grammar a bit: the C grammar allows the result of any unary operator to appear on the left hand side of an assignment operator, but unary operators are actually a mix of lvalues (*v, v[expr]) and rvalues (sizeof v, f(expr)). The grammar could have distinguished between the two kinds of unary operators, but it could not resolve the actual restriction, which is that only modifiable lvalues may appears on the left side of an assignment operator.
C++ allows an arbitrary expression to appear on the left-hand side of an assignment operator (although some need to be parenthesized); consequently, the following is totally legal:
(predicate(x) ? *some_pointer : some_variable) = 42;
In your case, you could resolve the conflict syntactically by replacing te with p, since both non-terminals produce the same set of derivations. That's probably not the general solution, unless it is really the case in your full grammar that left-side expressions are a strict subset of right-side expressions. In a full grammar, you might end up with three types of expression (left-only, right-only, common), which could considerably complicated the grammar, and leaving the resolution for semantic analysis might prove to be easier (and even, as in the case of C++, surprisingly useful).
