RE: Bison shift/reduce

Don't know if you're currently looking at fixing these, but if
you are interested in some help I might be able to lend a hand
next week (after Easter).

Oh thank you, thank you, and thank you.

I debugged this as a black box.  I worked on the rules until I got the
behavior I wanted using my test cases.  When I was finished there were
over a hundred warnings.

Ben took over and improved it to where it is now.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kenny MacDermid [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 8:59 AM
To: Mark Hahn
Subject: Bison shift/reduce

Hi'a Mark,

Congratulations with your learning of bison.

Was wondering about the current conflicts in your grammar.
Pls don't take this as an attack, but I noticed that I get 7
shift/reduce, and 15 reduce/reduce, when I run it through at
the moment.

These reduce/reduce ones are the real ones to be a little
worried about. They say stuff like:

-----
state 102

   87 def_ref: DEF_ LABEL .
  185 unbound_ref: LABEL .

    '('       reduce using rule 87 (def_ref)
    '('       [reduce using rule 185 (unbound_ref)]
    $default  reduce using rule 185 (unbound_ref)
-----

So when you see 'def blah (' reduce 'blah' to an unbound_ref
instead of a def_ref.

Don't know if your currently looking at fixing these, but if
your interested in some help I might be able to lend a hand
next week (after easter).

Kenny