CMSI 488 - Compiler Construction

Quiz 1 Answers
================================

PROBLEM 1
---------
Is it possible for the assignment statement

x.x = x;

to ever legally appear in a Carlos program? If it can, state what it means,

semantically. If not, state why it is impossible (technically), hinting at
either (1) why allowing it would be stupid (inconsistent with the language
design), or (2) the inexplicable oversight or stupidity of the language
designer for leaving it out.

Answer:

It's legal. It makes a field of an object reference the object itself,

as in this Carlos program:

struct s {s x;} // This is a TYPE DECLARATION in Carlos

s x; // This declares x to be a variable of type s
x.x = x; // x.x is also a variable of type s

PROBLEM 2
---------
For each of the following Carlos fragments, tell whether it is a lexical error,
syntax error, static semantic error, dynamic semantic error, or no error.

a) int x; int x;
b) int f(int x) {int x = x;}
c) char* `ohana = "family";
d) string pet = "dog"; pet = "rat";
e) string pet = "cat"; pet[0] = 'r';
f) int f(int x) {} int g() {f(1,2,3,4);}

Answer:

a) static semantic.
b) static semantic (but note this is NOT AN ERROR in C!)
c) lexical ("`" is not an allowable character). There is also
no char*, so syntax is also a possible answer.
d) no error
e) static semantic - strings are immutable in Carlos
f) static semantic (too many arguments to f)

PROBLEM 3
---------
Sketch the AST for the Java fragment:

void q(String... v) {
for (int y : f(x)) {
x = p.data[0] * (2< 5|-x *1);
}
}

Answer:
 method
/ / | \
void q param block
/ \ |
... v for
| // \ \
String __/ | \ \____
/ / \ \
int y call =
/ \ / \
f x x *
/ \
[] |
/ | / \
. 0 < *
/ \ / \ / \
p data 2 5 - 1
|
x

PROBLEM 4
---------
Consider a language for describing turtle graphics. An example program in
this language is:

deg color 1 0 0
left 90 forward 4 color 0 0 1 [ left 90
forward 1.5 ] right 90 forward 1.5

This program draws the letter T with a red vertical line of size 4 units and
topped with
a 3 unit blue line. A program is a sequence of instructions. The instructions are:

deg - switch to degree mode

rad - switch to radians mode
left a - turn left by angle a
right a - turn right by angle a
forward n - draw a line by moving forward n units.
backward n - draw a line by moving backward n units.
color r g b - set color (r,g,b), values are floats in the range 0 to 1.
[ - save current state
] - restore previously saved state

Write a macrosyntax in EBNF for this language. Handle the brackets

reasonably, please. State whether your grammar is LL(1) (meaning "can be
parsed top-down with only one lookahead symbol) or not, and whether it is
ambiguous or not.

Answer:

PROGRAM -> INST+

INST -> deg | rad | left NUM | right NUM | forward NUM | backward NUM
| color NUM NUM NUM | "[" INST+ "]"

Note that NUM is a primitive token, and note that the value constraint on
color arguments is not specified in the syntax; we're leaving that to the
static semantic description. The grammar is LL(1) and non-ambiguous.
PROBLEM 5
---------
Write a regular expression for the language of "positive hexadecimal numerals
divisible by 256". Is it possible to implement a parser for this language in
JavaCC using only numeric lookahead values? If so, what is the find the smallest
lookahead value you would need?

Answer:

Well the adjective "positive" had connotations of twos-complement

representation I didn't intend. I only meant positive as in "no leading
minus sign" and "greater than zero". I should have left it out. Anyway,
the regex is:

0*[1-9A-Fa-f][0-9A-Fa-f]*00

That's not LL(1), it's LL(3). You have to lookahead 3 symbols to know
whether to take the final two zeros of the right alternative (the third
symbol is <EOF>). I think 3 is the minimum we can get.

PROBLEM 6
---------
Is this grammar an LL grammar?

A -> B C
B -> a | b?c?
C -> c | BA

If you find that this grammar is not LL, make one that is (that defines the same
language of course).

Answer:

It's not LL(k) for any k. You can have a derivation like this:

A => BC => C => BA => A => ...

so there's left recursion. You can expand like that forever until you
do anything useful.

Finding an equivalent grammar is easy, since the language being

described is all strings ending with a c. So:

A -> (a|b|c)*c

PROBLEM 7
---------
EBNF generally uses

* A B to mean exactly one A followed by exactly one B

* A? to mean zero or one A
* A* to mean zero or more As
* A | B to mean either exactly one A OR exactly one B

Suppose I wanted to add a new one:

* A1 # A2 # ... # An to mean "a non-empty string in which each of the Ais

 occurs zero or one times."

Show how to write A # B # C using only the conventional EBNF markup.

Answer:

A(B?C?|C?B?) | B(A?C?|C?A?) | C(A?B?|B?A?)