David Engster writes:
> David Engster writes:
>> The F90 tagging parser worked pretty much after 30 minutes. I then
>> turned to the C grammar, and here things don't go as smoothly.
> What is really strange is that my c.wy produces oodles of shift/reduce
> and reduce/reduce conflicts. So I guess there still must be something
> I'm missing, but I cannot figure out why I get these ambiguities in the
I removed the lambda expressions and send the grammar through Bison to
get a more verbose output. Indeed, the grammar has several ambiguities.
I think I could remove the reduce/reduce conflicts, but then there are
also a few dozen(!) shift/reduce errors... so I'd rather not go further
with this. It's a shame, I'd really like to now how much faster a LALR
parser would be. Also, I'm wondering why we even get a working LL parser
from that grammar.