Consider the grammar G with productions \(S\to A\mid B,\quad A\to a\mid c,\quad B\to b\mid c\). The nonterminals are S, A, B and the terminals are a, b, c. Without rewriting G or resolving parsing-table conflicts by an extra rule, which statements are correct? S1: The canonical LR(1) parsing table for G is conflict-free. S2: The LL(1) predictive parsing table for G is conflict-free.
Neither S1 nor S 2
\(\mathrm{FIRST}(A)=\{a,c\},\quad\mathrm{FIRST}(B)=\{b,c\}\). Thus the LL(1) entry for S and lookahead c has both productions S → A and S → B.
In the canonical LR(1) automaton, after c the completed items \([A\to c\mathbin{\cdot},\$]\) and \([B\to c\mathbin{\cdot},\$]\) require two reductions on the same lookahead. This is a reduce/reduce conflict. Neither statement is correct.
Important Questions from Parser
- Arrange the following parsers in increasing order of their power of handling grammars i.e. from the least powerful parser to the most powerful parser.
A. LR(0)
B. LR(1)
C. LALR(1)
D. LL(0)
E. SLR
Choose the correct answer from the options given below: - Which of the following statements is/are true?
Consider the following statements:
Statement I: LALR parser is more powerful than canonical LR Parser.
Statement II: SLR parser is more powerful than LALR
Which of the following is correct?
Given below are two statements
Statement I : LL(1) and LR are examples of Bottom‐up parsers.
Statement II : Recursive descent parser and SLR are examples of Top‐down parsers
In light of the above statements, choose the correct answer from the options given below
