/*
[The "BSD licence"]
Copyright (c) 2005-2006 Terence Parr
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products
derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES
OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT
NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF
THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
*/
package org.antlr.analysis;
import org.antlr.misc.OrderedHashSet;
import org.antlr.misc.Utils;
import org.antlr.tool.ErrorManager;
import java.util.*;
import antlr.Token;
/** Code that embodies the NFA conversion to DFA. A new object is needed
* per DFA (also required for thread safety if multiple conversions
* launched).
*/
public class NFAToDFAConverter {
/** A list of DFA states we still need to process during NFA conversion */
protected List work = new LinkedList();
/** While converting NFA, we must track states that
* reference other rule's NFAs so we know what to do
* at the end of a rule. We need to know what context invoked
* this rule so we can know where to continue looking for NFA
* states. I'm tracking a context tree (record of rule invocation
* stack trace) for each alternative that could be predicted.
*/
protected NFAContext[] contextTrees;
/** We are converting which DFA? */
protected DFA dfa;
public static boolean debug = false;
/** Should ANTLR launch multiple threads to convert NFAs to DFAs?
* With a 2-CPU box, I note that it's about the same single or
* multithreaded. Both CPU meters are going even when single-threaded
* so I assume the GC is killing us. Could be the compiler. When I
* run java -Xint mode, I get about 15% speed improvement with multiple
* threads.
*/
public static boolean SINGLE_THREADED_NFA_CONVERSION = true;
protected boolean computingStartState = false;
public NFAToDFAConverter(DFA dfa) {
this.dfa = dfa;
int nAlts = dfa.getNumberOfAlts();
initContextTrees(nAlts);
}
public void convert() {
dfa.conversionStartTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
// create the DFA start state
dfa.startState = computeStartState();
// while more DFA states to check, process them
while ( work.size()>0 &&
!dfa.nfa.grammar.NFAToDFAConversionExternallyAborted() )
{
DFAState d = (DFAState) work.get(0);
if ( dfa.nfa.grammar.composite.watchNFAConversion ) {
System.out.println("convert DFA state "+d.stateNumber+
" ("+d.nfaConfigurations.size()+" nfa states)");
}
int k = dfa.getUserMaxLookahead();
if ( k>0 && k==d.getLookaheadDepth() ) {
// we've hit max lookahead, make this a stop state
//System.out.println("stop state @k="+k+" (terminated early)");
/*
List<Label> sampleInputLabels = d.dfa.probe.getSampleNonDeterministicInputSequence(d);
String input = d.dfa.probe.getInputSequenceDisplay(sampleInputLabels);
System.out.println("sample input: "+input);
*/
resolveNonDeterminisms(d);
// Check to see if we need to add any semantic predicate transitions
if ( d.isResolvedWithPredicates() ) {
addPredicateTransitions(d);
}
else {
d.setAcceptState(true); // must convert to accept state at k
}
}
else {
findNewDFAStatesAndAddDFATransitions(d);
}
work.remove(0); // done with it; remove from work list
}
// Find all manual syn preds (gated). These are not discovered
// in tryToResolveWithSemanticPredicates because they are implicitly
// added to every edge by code gen, DOT generation etc...
dfa.findAllGatedSynPredsUsedInDFAAcceptStates();
}
/** From this first NFA state of a decision, create a DFA.
* Walk each alt in decision and compute closure from the start of that
* rule, making sure that the closure does not include other alts within
* that same decision. The idea is to associate a specific alt number
* with the starting closure so we can trace the alt number for all states
* derived from this. At a stop state in the DFA, we can return this alt
* number, indicating which alt is predicted.
*
* If this DFA is derived from an loop back NFA state, then the first
* transition is actually the exit branch of the loop. Rather than make
* this alternative one, let's make this alt n+1 where n is the number of
* alts in this block. This is nice to keep the alts of the block 1..n;
* helps with error messages.
*
* I handle nongreedy in findNewDFAStatesAndAddDFATransitions
* when nongreedy and EOT transition. Make state with EOT emanating
* from it the accept state.
*/
protected DFAState computeStartState() {
NFAState alt = dfa.decisionNFAStartState;
DFAState startState = dfa.newState();
computingStartState = true;
int i = 0;
int altNum = 1;
while ( alt!=null ) {
// find the set of NFA states reachable without consuming
// any input symbols for each alt. Keep adding to same
// overall closure that will represent the DFA start state,
// but track the alt number
NFAContext initialContext = contextTrees[i];
// if first alt is derived from loopback/exit branch of loop,
// make alt=n+1 for n alts instead of 1
if ( i==0 &&
dfa.getNFADecisionStartState().decisionStateType==NFAState.LOOPBACK )
{
int numAltsIncludingExitBranch = dfa.nfa.grammar
.getNumberOfAltsForDecisionNFA(dfa.decisionNFAStartState);
altNum = numAltsIncludingExitBranch;
closure((NFAState)alt.transition[0].target,
altNum,
initialContext,
SemanticContext.EMPTY_SEMANTIC_CONTEXT,
startState,
true
);
altNum = 1; // make next alt the first
}
else {
closure((NFAState)alt.transition[0].target,
altNum,
initialContext,
SemanticContext.EMPTY_SEMANTIC_CONTEXT,
startState,
true
);
altNum++;
}
i++;
// move to next alternative
if ( alt.transition[1] ==null ) {
break;
}
alt = (NFAState)alt.transition[1].target;
}
// now DFA start state has the complete closure for the decision
// but we have tracked which alt is associated with which
// NFA states.
dfa.addState(startState); // make sure dfa knows about this state
work.add(startState);
computingStartState = false;
return startState;
}
/** From this node, add a d--a-->t transition for all
* labels 'a' where t is a DFA node created
* from the set of NFA states reachable from any NFA
* state in DFA state d.
*/
protected void findNewDFAStatesAndAddDFATransitions(DFAState d) {
//System.out.println("work on DFA state "+d);
OrderedHashSet labels = d.getReachableLabels();
//System.out.println("reachable labels="+labels);
/*
System.out.println("|reachable|/|nfaconfigs|="+
labels.size()+"/"+d.getNFAConfigurations().size()+"="+
labels.size()/(float)d.getNFAConfigurations().size());
*/
// normally EOT is the "default" clause and decisions just
// choose that last clause when nothing else matches. DFA conversion
// continues searching for a unique sequence that predicts the
// various alts or until it finds EOT. So this rule
//
// DUH : ('x'|'y')* "xy!";
//
// does not need a greedy indicator. The following rule works fine too
//
// A : ('x')+ ;
//
// When the follow branch could match what is in the loop, by default,
// the nondeterminism is resolved in favor of the loop. You don't
// get a warning because the only way to get this condition is if
// the DFA conversion hits the end of the token. In that case,
// we're not *sure* what will happen next, but it could be anything.
// Anyway, EOT is the default case which means it will never be matched
// as resolution goes to the lowest alt number. Exit branches are
// always alt n+1 for n alts in a block.
//
// When a loop is nongreedy and we find an EOT transition, the DFA
// state should become an accept state, predicting exit of loop. It's
// just reversing the resolution of ambiguity.
// TODO: should this be done in the resolveAmbig method?
Label EOTLabel = new Label(Label.EOT);
boolean containsEOT = labels!=null && labels.contains(EOTLabel);
if ( !dfa.isGreedy() && containsEOT ) {
convertToEOTAcceptState(d);
return; // no more work to do on this accept state
}
// if in filter mode for lexer, want to match shortest not longest
// string so if we see an EOT edge emanating from this state, then
// convert this state to an accept state. This only counts for
// The Tokens rule as all other decisions must continue to look for
// longest match.
// [Taking back out a few days later on Jan 17, 2006. This could
// be an option for the future, but this was wrong soluion for
// filtering.]
/*
if ( dfa.nfa.grammar.type==Grammar.LEXER && containsEOT ) {
String filterOption = (String)dfa.nfa.grammar.getOption("filter");
boolean filterMode = filterOption!=null && filterOption.equals("true");
if ( filterMode && d.dfa.isTokensRuleDecision() ) {
DFAState t = reach(d, EOTLabel);
if ( t.getNFAConfigurations().size()>0 ) {
convertToEOTAcceptState(d);
//System.out.println("state "+d+" has EOT target "+t.stateNumber);
return;
}
}
}
*/
int numberOfEdgesEmanating = 0;
Map targetToLabelMap = new HashMap();
// for each label that could possibly emanate from NFAStates of d
int numLabels = 0;
if ( labels!=null ) {
numLabels = labels.size();
}
for (int i=0; i<numLabels; i++) {
Label label = (Label)labels.get(i);
DFAState t = reach(d, label);
if ( debug ) {
System.out.println("DFA state after reach "+label+" "+d+"-" +
label.toString(dfa.nfa.grammar)+"->"+t);
}
if ( t==null ) {
// nothing was reached by label due to conflict resolution
// EOT also seems to be in here occasionally probably due
// to an end-of-rule state seeing it even though we'll pop
// an invoking state off the state; don't bother to conflict
// as this labels set is a covering approximation only.
continue;
}
//System.out.println("dfa.k="+dfa.getUserMaxLookahead());
if ( t.getUniqueAlt()==NFA.INVALID_ALT_NUMBER ) {
// Only compute closure if a unique alt number is not known.
// If a unique alternative is mentioned among all NFA
// configurations then there is no possibility of needing to look
// beyond this state; also no possibility of a nondeterminism.
// This optimization May 22, 2006 just dropped -Xint time
// for analysis of Java grammar from 11.5s to 2s! Wow.
closure(t); // add any NFA states reachable via epsilon
}
/*
System.out.println("DFA state after closure "+d+"-"+
label.toString(dfa.nfa.grammar)+
"->"+t);
*/
// add if not in DFA yet and then make d-label->t
DFAState targetState = addDFAStateToWorkList(t);
numberOfEdgesEmanating +=
addTransition(d, label, targetState, targetToLabelMap);
// lookahead of target must be one larger than d's k
// We are possibly setting the depth of a pre-existing state
// that is equal to one we just computed...not sure if that's
// ok.
targetState.setLookaheadDepth(d.getLookaheadDepth() + 1);
}
//System.out.println("DFA after reach / closures:\n"+dfa);
if ( !d.isResolvedWithPredicates() && numberOfEdgesEmanating==0 ) {
//System.out.println("dangling DFA state "+d+"\nAfter reach / closures:\n"+dfa);
// TODO: can fixed lookahead hit a dangling state case?
// TODO: yes, with left recursion
//System.err.println("dangling state alts: "+d.getAltSet());
dfa.probe.reportDanglingState(d);
// turn off all configurations except for those associated with
// min alt number; somebody has to win else some input will not
// predict any alt.
int minAlt = resolveByPickingMinAlt(d, null);
// force it to be an accept state
// don't call convertToAcceptState() which merges stop states.
// other states point at us; don't want them pointing to dead states
d.setAcceptState(true); // might be adding new accept state for alt
dfa.setAcceptState(minAlt, d);
//convertToAcceptState(d, minAlt); // force it to be an accept state
}
// Check to see if we need to add any semantic predicate transitions
if ( d.isResolvedWithPredicates() ) {
addPredicateTransitions(d);
}
}
/** Add a transition from state d to targetState with label in normal case.
* if COLLAPSE_ALL_INCIDENT_EDGES, however, try to merge all edges from
* d to targetState; this means merging their labels. Another optimization
* is to reduce to a single EOT edge any set of edges from d to targetState
* where there exists an EOT state. EOT is like the wildcard so don't
* bother to test any other edges. Example:
*
* NUM_INT
* : '1'..'9' ('0'..'9')* ('l'|'L')?
* | '0' ('x'|'X') ('0'..'9'|'a'..'f'|'A'..'F')+ ('l'|'L')?
* | '0' ('0'..'7')* ('l'|'L')?
* ;
*
* The normal decision to predict alts 1, 2, 3 is:
*
* if ( (input.LA(1)>='1' && input.LA(1)<='9') ) {
* alt7=1;
* }
* else if ( input.LA(1)=='0' ) {
* if ( input.LA(2)=='X'||input.LA(2)=='x' ) {
* alt7=2;
* }
* else if ( (input.LA(2)>='0' && input.LA(2)<='7') ) {
* alt7=3;
* }
* else if ( input.LA(2)=='L'||input.LA(2)=='l' ) {
* alt7=3;
* }
* else {
* alt7=3;
* }
* }
* else error
*
* Clearly, alt 3 is predicted with extra work since it tests 0..7
* and [lL] before finally realizing that any character is actually
* ok at k=2.
*
* A better decision is as follows:
*
* if ( (input.LA(1)>='1' && input.LA(1)<='9') ) {
* alt7=1;
* }
* else if ( input.LA(1)=='0' ) {
* if ( input.LA(2)=='X'||input.LA(2)=='x' ) {
* alt7=2;
* }
* else {
* alt7=3;
* }
* }
*
* The DFA originally has 3 edges going to the state the predicts alt 3,
* but upon seeing the EOT edge (the "else"-clause), this method
* replaces the old merged label (which would have (0..7|l|L)) with EOT.
* The code generator then leaves alt 3 predicted with a simple else-
* clause. :)
*
* The only time the EOT optimization makes no sense is in the Tokens
* rule. We want EOT to truly mean you have matched an entire token
* so don't bother actually rewinding to execute that rule unless there
* are actions in that rule. For now, since I am not preventing
* backtracking from Tokens rule, I will simply allow the optimization.
*/
protected static int addTransition(DFAState d,
Label label,
DFAState targetState,
Map targetToLabelMap)
{
//System.out.println(d.stateNumber+"-"+label.toString(dfa.nfa.grammar)+"->"+targetState.stateNumber);
int n = 0;
if ( DFAOptimizer.COLLAPSE_ALL_PARALLEL_EDGES ) {
// track which targets we've hit
Integer tI = Utils.integer(targetState.stateNumber);
Transition oldTransition = (Transition)targetToLabelMap.get(tI);
if ( oldTransition!=null ) {
//System.out.println("extra transition to "+tI+" upon "+label.toString(dfa.nfa.grammar));
// already seen state d to target transition, just add label
// to old label unless EOT
if ( label.getAtom()==Label.EOT ) {
// merge with EOT means old edge can go away
oldTransition.label = new Label(Label.EOT);
}
else {
// don't add anything to EOT, it's essentially the wildcard
if ( oldTransition.label.getAtom()!=Label.EOT ) {
// ok, not EOT, add in this label to old label
oldTransition.label.add(label);
}
//System.out.println("label updated to be "+oldTransition.label.toString(dfa.nfa.grammar));
}
}
else {
// make a transition from d to t upon 'a'
n = 1;
label = (Label)label.clone(); // clone in case we alter later
int transitionIndex = d.addTransition(targetState, label);
Transition trans = d.getTransition(transitionIndex);
// track target/transition pairs
targetToLabelMap.put(tI, trans);
}
}
else {
n = 1;
d.addTransition(targetState, label);
}
return n;
}
/** For all NFA states (configurations) merged in d,
* compute the epsilon closure; that is, find all NFA states reachable
* from the NFA states in d via purely epsilon transitions.
*/
public void closure(DFAState d) {
if ( debug ) {
System.out.println("closure("+d+")");
}
List<NFAConfiguration> configs = new ArrayList<NFAConfiguration>();
// Because we are adding to the configurations in closure
// must clone initial list so we know when to stop doing closure
configs.addAll(d.nfaConfigurations);
// for each NFA configuration in d (abort if we detect non-LL(*) state)
int numConfigs = configs.size();
for (int i = 0; i < numConfigs; i++) {
NFAConfiguration c = (NFAConfiguration)configs.get(i);
if ( c.singleAtomTransitionEmanating ) {
continue; // ignore NFA states w/o epsilon transitions
}
//System.out.println("go do reach for NFA state "+c.state);
// figure out reachable NFA states from each of d's nfa states
// via epsilon transitions.
// Fill configsInClosure rather than altering d configs inline
closure(dfa.nfa.getState(c.state),
c.alt,
c.context,
c.semanticContext,
d,
false);
}
//System.out.println("after closure d="+d);
d.closureBusy = null; // wack all that memory used during closure
}
/** Where can we get from NFA state p traversing only epsilon transitions?
* Add new NFA states + context to DFA state d. Also add semantic
* predicates to semantic context if collectPredicates is set. We only
* collect predicates at hoisting depth 0, meaning before any token/char
* have been recognized. This corresponds, during analysis, to the
* initial DFA start state construction closure() invocation.
*
* There are four cases of interest (the last being the usual transition):
*
* 1. Traverse an edge that takes us to the start state of another
* rule, r. We must push this state so that if the DFA
* conversion hits the end of rule r, then it knows to continue
* the conversion at state following state that "invoked" r. By
* construction, there is a single transition emanating from a rule
* ref node.
*
* 2. Reach an NFA state associated with the end of a rule, r, in the
* grammar from which it was built. We must add an implicit (i.e.,
* don't actually add an epsilon transition) epsilon transition
* from r's end state to the NFA state following the NFA state
* that transitioned to rule r's start state. Because there are
* many states that could reach r, the context for a rule invocation
* is part of a call tree not a simple stack. When we fall off end
* of rule, "pop" a state off the call tree and add that state's
* "following" node to d's NFA configuration list. The context
* for this new addition will be the new "stack top" in the call tree.
*
* 3. Like case 2, we reach an NFA state associated with the end of a
* rule, r, in the grammar from which NFA was built. In this case,
* however, we realize that during this NFA->DFA conversion, no state
* invoked the current rule's NFA. There is no choice but to add
* all NFA states that follow references to r's start state. This is
* analogous to computing the FOLLOW(r) in the LL(k) world. By
* construction, even rule stop state has a chain of nodes emanating
* from it that points to every possible following node. This case
* is conveniently handled then by the 4th case.
*
* 4. Normal case. If p can reach another NFA state q, then add
* q to d's configuration list, copying p's context for q's context.
* If there is a semantic predicate on the transition, then AND it
* with any existing semantic context.
*
* Current state p is always added to d's configuration list as it's part
* of the closure as well.
*
* When is a closure operation in a cycle condition? While it is
* very possible to have the same NFA state mentioned twice
* within the same DFA state, there are two situations that
* would lead to nontermination of closure operation:
*
* o Whenever closure reaches a configuration where the same state
* with same or a suffix context already exists. This catches
* the IF-THEN-ELSE tail recursion cycle and things like
*
* a : A a | B ;
*
* the context will be $ (empty stack).
*
* We have to check
* larger context stacks because of (...)+ loops. For
* example, the context of a (...)+ can be nonempty if the
* surrounding rule is invoked by another rule:
*
* a : b A | X ;
* b : (B|)+ ; // nondeterministic by the way
*
* The context of the (B|)+ loop is "invoked from item
* a : . b A ;" and then the empty alt of the loop can reach back
* to itself. The context stack will have one "return
* address" element and so we must check for same state, same
* context for arbitrary context stacks.
*
* Idea: If we've seen this configuration before during closure, stop.
* We also need to avoid reaching same state with conflicting context.
* Ultimately analysis would stop and we'd find the conflict, but we
* should stop the computation. Previously I only checked for
* exact config. Need to check for same state, suffix context
* not just exact context.
*
* o Whenever closure reaches a configuration where state p
* is present in its own context stack. This means that
* p is a rule invocation state and the target rule has
* been called before. NFAContext.MAX_RECURSIVE_INVOCATIONS
* (See the comment there also) determines how many times
* it's possible to recurse; clearly we cannot recurse forever.
* Some grammars such as the following actually require at
* least one recursive call to correctly compute the lookahead:
*
* a : L ID R
* | b
* ;
* b : ID
* | L a R
* ;
*
* Input L ID R is ambiguous but to figure this out, ANTLR
* needs to go a->b->a->b to find the L ID sequence.
*
* Do not allow closure to add a configuration that would
* allow too much recursion.
*
* This case also catches infinite left recursion.
*/
public void closure(NFAState p,
int alt,
NFAContext context,
SemanticContext semanticContext,
DFAState d,
boolean collectPredicates)
{
if ( debug ){
System.out.println("closure at "+p.enclosingRule.name+" state "+p.stateNumber+"|"+
alt+" filling DFA state "+d.stateNumber+" with context "+context
);
}
if ( DFA.MAX_TIME_PER_DFA_CREATION>0 &&
System.currentTimeMillis() - d.dfa.conversionStartTime >=
DFA.MAX_TIME_PER_DFA_CREATION )
{
// bail way out; we've blown up somehow
throw new AnalysisTimeoutException(d.dfa);
}
NFAConfiguration proposedNFAConfiguration =
new NFAConfiguration(p.stateNumber,
alt,
context,
semanticContext);
// Avoid infinite recursion
if ( closureIsBusy(d, proposedNFAConfiguration) ) {
if ( debug ) {
System.out.println("avoid visiting exact closure computation NFA config: "+
proposedNFAConfiguration+" in "+p.enclosingRule.name);
System.out.println("state is "+d.dfa.decisionNumber+"."+d.stateNumber);
}
return;
}
// set closure to be busy for this NFA configuration
d.closureBusy.add(proposedNFAConfiguration);
// p itself is always in closure
d.addNFAConfiguration(p, proposedNFAConfiguration);
// Case 1: are we a reference to another rule?
Transition transition0 = p.transition[0];
if ( transition0 instanceof RuleClosureTransition ) {
int depth = context.recursionDepthEmanatingFromState(p.stateNumber);
// Detect recursion by more than a single alt, which indicates
// that the decision's lookahead language is non-regular; terminate
if ( depth == 1 && d.dfa.getUserMaxLookahead()==0 ) { // k=* only
d.dfa.recursiveAltSet.add(alt); // indicate that this alt is recursive
if ( d.dfa.recursiveAltSet.size()>1 ) {
//System.out.println("recursive alts: "+d.dfa.recursiveAltSet.toString());
d.abortedDueToMultipleRecursiveAlts = true;
throw new NonLLStarDecisionException(d.dfa);
}
/*
System.out.println("alt "+alt+" in rule "+p.enclosingRule+" dec "+d.dfa.decisionNumber+
" ctx: "+context);
System.out.println("d="+d);
*/
}
// Detect an attempt to recurse too high
// if this context has hit the max recursions for p.stateNumber,
// don't allow it to enter p.stateNumber again
if ( depth >= NFAContext.MAX_SAME_RULE_INVOCATIONS_PER_NFA_CONFIG_STACK ) {
/*
System.out.println("OVF state "+d);
System.out.println("proposed "+proposedNFAConfiguration);
*/
d.abortedDueToRecursionOverflow = true;
d.dfa.probe.reportRecursionOverflow(d, proposedNFAConfiguration);
if ( debug ) {
System.out.println("analysis overflow in closure("+d.stateNumber+")");
}
return;
}
// otherwise, it's cool to (re)enter target of this rule ref
RuleClosureTransition ref = (RuleClosureTransition)transition0;
// first create a new context and push onto call tree,
// recording the fact that we are invoking a rule and
// from which state (case 2 below will get the following state
// via the RuleClosureTransition emanating from the invoking state
// pushed on the stack).
// Reset the context to reflect the fact we invoked rule
NFAContext newContext = new NFAContext(context, p);
//System.out.println("invoking rule "+ref.rule.name);
// System.out.println(" context="+context);
// traverse epsilon edge to new rule
NFAState ruleTarget = (NFAState)ref.target;
closure(ruleTarget, alt, newContext, semanticContext, d, collectPredicates);
}
// Case 2: end of rule state, context (i.e., an invoker) exists
else if ( p.isAcceptState() && context.parent!=null ) {
NFAState whichStateInvokedRule = context.invokingState;
RuleClosureTransition edgeToRule =
(RuleClosureTransition)whichStateInvokedRule.transition[0];
NFAState continueState = edgeToRule.followState;
NFAContext newContext = context.parent; // "pop" invoking state
closure(continueState, alt, newContext, semanticContext, d, collectPredicates);
}
// Case 3: end of rule state, nobody invoked this rule (no context)
// Fall thru to be handled by case 4 automagically.
// Case 4: ordinary NFA->DFA conversion case: simple epsilon transition
else {
// recurse down any epsilon transitions
if ( transition0!=null && transition0.isEpsilon() ) {
boolean collectPredicatesAfterAction = collectPredicates;
if ( transition0.isAction() && collectPredicates ) {
collectPredicatesAfterAction = false;
/*
if ( computingStartState ) {
System.out.println("found action during prediction closure "+((ActionLabel)transition0.label).actionAST.token);
}
*/
}
closure((NFAState)transition0.target,
alt,
context,
semanticContext,
d,
collectPredicatesAfterAction
);
}
else if ( transition0!=null && transition0.isSemanticPredicate() ) {
SemanticContext labelContext = transition0.label.getSemanticContext();
if ( computingStartState ) {
if ( collectPredicates ) {
// only indicate we can see a predicate if we're collecting preds
// Could be computing start state & seen an action before this.
dfa.predicateVisible = true;
}
else {
// this state has a pred, but we can't see it.
dfa.hasPredicateBlockedByAction = true;
// System.out.println("found pred during prediction but blocked by action found previously");
}
}
// continue closure here too, but add the sem pred to ctx
SemanticContext newSemanticContext = semanticContext;
if ( collectPredicates ) {
// AND the previous semantic context with new pred
// do not hoist syn preds from other rules; only get if in
// starting state's rule (i.e., context is empty)
int walkAlt =
dfa.decisionNFAStartState.translateDisplayAltToWalkAlt(alt);
NFAState altLeftEdge =
dfa.nfa.grammar.getNFAStateForAltOfDecision(dfa.decisionNFAStartState,walkAlt);
/*
System.out.println("state "+p.stateNumber+" alt "+alt+" walkAlt "+walkAlt+" trans to "+transition0.target);
System.out.println("DFA start state "+dfa.decisionNFAStartState.stateNumber);
System.out.println("alt left edge "+altLeftEdge.stateNumber+
", epsilon target "+
altLeftEdge.transition(0).target.stateNumber);
*/
if ( !labelContext.isSyntacticPredicate() ||
p==altLeftEdge.transition[0].target )
{
//System.out.println("&"+labelContext+" enclosingRule="+p.enclosingRule);
newSemanticContext =
SemanticContext.and(semanticContext, labelContext);
}
}
closure((NFAState)transition0.target,
alt,
context,
newSemanticContext,
d,
collectPredicates);
}
Transition transition1 = p.transition[1];
if ( transition1!=null && transition1.isEpsilon() ) {
closure((NFAState)transition1.target,
alt,
context,
semanticContext,
d,
collectPredicates);
}
}
// don't remove "busy" flag as we want to prevent all
// references to same config of state|alt|ctx|semCtx even
// if resulting from another NFA state
}
/** A closure operation should abort if that computation has already
* been done or a computation with a conflicting context has already
* been done. If proposed NFA config's state and alt are the same
* there is potentially a problem. If the stack context is identical
* then clearly the exact same computation is proposed. If a context
* is a suffix of the other, then again the computation is in an
* identical context. ?$ and ??$ are considered the same stack.
* We could walk configurations linearly doing the comparison instead
* of a set for exact matches but it's much slower because you can't
* do a Set lookup. I use exact match as ANTLR
* always detect the conflict later when checking for context suffixes...
* I check for left-recursive stuff and terminate before analysis to
* avoid need to do this more expensive computation.
*
* 12-31-2007: I had to use the loop again rather than simple
* closureBusy.contains(proposedNFAConfiguration) lookup. The
* semantic context should not be considered when determining if
* a closure operation is busy. I saw a FOLLOW closure operation
* spin until time out because the predicate context kept increasing
* in size even though it's same boolean value. This seems faster also
* because I'm not doing String.equals on the preds all the time.
*
* 05-05-2008: Hmm...well, i think it was a mistake to remove the sem
* ctx check below...adding back in. Coincides with report of ANTLR
* getting super slow: http://www.antlr.org:8888/browse/ANTLR-235
* This could be because it doesn't properly compute then resolve
* a predicate expression. Seems to fix unit test:
* TestSemanticPredicates.testSemanticContextPreventsEarlyTerminationOfClosure()
* Changing back to Set from List. Changed a large grammar from 8 minutes
* to 11 seconds. Cool. Closing ANTLR-235.
*/
public static boolean closureIsBusy(DFAState d,
NFAConfiguration proposedNFAConfiguration)
{
return d.closureBusy.contains(proposedNFAConfiguration);
/*
int numConfigs = d.closureBusy.size();
// Check epsilon cycle (same state, same alt, same context)
for (int i = 0; i < numConfigs; i++) {
NFAConfiguration c = (NFAConfiguration) d.closureBusy.get(i);
if ( proposedNFAConfiguration.state==c.state &&
proposedNFAConfiguration.alt==c.alt &&
proposedNFAConfiguration.semanticContext.equals(c.semanticContext) &&
proposedNFAConfiguration.context.suffix(c.context) )
{
return true;
}
}
return false;
*/
}
/** Given the set of NFA states in DFA state d, find all NFA states
* reachable traversing label arcs. By definition, there can be
* only one DFA state reachable by an atom from DFA state d so we must
* find and merge all NFA states reachable via label. Return a new
* DFAState that has all of those NFA states with their context (i.e.,
* which alt do they predict and where to return to if they fall off
* end of a rule).
*
* Because we cannot jump to another rule nor fall off the end of a rule
* via a non-epsilon transition, NFA states reachable from d have the
* same configuration as the NFA state in d. So if NFA state 7 in d's
* configurations can reach NFA state 13 then 13 will be added to the
* new DFAState (labelDFATarget) with the same configuration as state
* 7 had.
*
* This method does not see EOT transitions off the end of token rule
* accept states if the rule was invoked by somebody.
*/
public DFAState reach(DFAState d, Label label) {
//System.out.println("reach "+label.toString(dfa.nfa.grammar)+" from "+d.stateNumber);
DFAState labelDFATarget = dfa.newState();
// for each NFA state in d with a labeled edge,
// add in target states for label
//System.out.println("size(d.state="+d.stateNumber+")="+d.nfaConfigurations.size());
//System.out.println("size(labeled edge states)="+d.configurationsWithLabeledEdges.size());
List<NFAConfiguration> configs = d.configurationsWithLabeledEdges;
int numConfigs = configs.size();
for (int i = 0; i < numConfigs; i++) {
NFAConfiguration c = configs.get(i);
if ( c.resolved || c.resolveWithPredicate ) {
continue; // the conflict resolver indicates we must leave alone
}
NFAState p = dfa.nfa.getState(c.state);
// by design of the grammar->NFA conversion, only transition 0
// may have a non-epsilon edge.
Transition edge = p.transition[0];
if ( edge==null || !c.singleAtomTransitionEmanating ) {
continue;
}
Label edgeLabel = edge.label;
// SPECIAL CASE
// if it's an EOT transition on end of lexer rule, but context
// stack is not empty, then don't see the EOT; the closure
// will have added in the proper states following the reference
// to this rule in the invoking rule. In other words, if
// somebody called this rule, don't see the EOT emanating from
// this accept state.
if ( c.context.parent!=null && edgeLabel.label==Label.EOT ) {
continue;
}
// Labels not unique at this point (not until addReachableLabels)
// so try simple int label match before general set intersection
//System.out.println("comparing "+edgeLabel+" with "+label);
if ( Label.intersect(label, edgeLabel) ) {
// found a transition with label;
// add NFA target to (potentially) new DFA state
NFAConfiguration newC = labelDFATarget.addNFAConfiguration(
(NFAState)edge.target,
c.alt,
c.context,
c.semanticContext);
}
}
if ( labelDFATarget.nfaConfigurations.size()==0 ) {
// kill; it's empty
dfa.setState(labelDFATarget.stateNumber, null);
labelDFATarget = null;
}
return labelDFATarget;
}
/** Walk the configurations of this DFA state d looking for the
* configuration, c, that has a transition on EOT. State d should
* be converted to an accept state predicting the c.alt. Blast
* d's current configuration set and make it just have config c.
*
* TODO: can there be more than one config with EOT transition?
* That would mean that two NFA configurations could reach the
* end of the token with possibly different predicted alts.
* Seems like that would be rare or impossible. Perhaps convert
* this routine to find all such configs and give error if >1.
*/
protected void convertToEOTAcceptState(DFAState d) {
Label eot = new Label(Label.EOT);
int numConfigs = d.nfaConfigurations.size();
for (int i = 0; i < numConfigs; i++) {
NFAConfiguration c = (NFAConfiguration)d.nfaConfigurations.get(i);
if ( c.resolved || c.resolveWithPredicate ) {
continue; // the conflict resolver indicates we must leave alone
}
NFAState p = dfa.nfa.getState(c.state);
Transition edge = p.transition[0];
Label edgeLabel = edge.label;
if ( edgeLabel.equals(eot) ) {
//System.out.println("config with EOT: "+c);
d.setAcceptState(true);
//System.out.println("d goes from "+d);
d.nfaConfigurations.clear();
d.addNFAConfiguration(p,c.alt,c.context,c.semanticContext);
//System.out.println("to "+d);
return; // assume only one EOT transition
}
}
}
/** Add a new DFA state to the DFA if not already present.
* If the DFA state uniquely predicts a single alternative, it
* becomes a stop state; don't add to work list. Further, if
* there exists an NFA state predicted by > 1 different alternatives
* and with the same syn and sem context, the DFA is nondeterministic for
* at least one input sequence reaching that NFA state.
*/
protected DFAState addDFAStateToWorkList(DFAState d) {
DFAState existingState = dfa.addState(d);
if ( d != existingState ) {
// already there...use/return the existing DFA state.
// But also set the states[d.stateNumber] to the existing
// DFA state because the closureIsBusy must report
// infinite recursion on a state before it knows
// whether or not the state will already be
// found after closure on it finishes. It could be
// referring to a state that will ultimately not make it
// into the reachable state space and the error
// reporting must be able to compute the path from
// start to the error state with infinite recursion
dfa.setState(d.stateNumber, existingState);
return existingState;
}
// if not there, then examine new state.
// resolve syntactic conflicts by choosing a single alt or
// by using semantic predicates if present.
resolveNonDeterminisms(d);
// If deterministic, don't add this state; it's an accept state
// Just return as a valid DFA state
int alt = d.getUniquelyPredictedAlt();
if ( alt!=NFA.INVALID_ALT_NUMBER ) { // uniquely predicts an alt?
d = convertToAcceptState(d, alt);
/*
System.out.println("convert to accept; DFA "+d.dfa.decisionNumber+" state "+d.stateNumber+" uniquely predicts alt "+
d.getUniquelyPredictedAlt());
*/
}
else {
// unresolved, add to work list to continue NFA conversion
work.add(d);
}
return d;
}
protected DFAState convertToAcceptState(DFAState d, int alt) {
// only merge stop states if they are deterministic and no
// recursion problems and only if they have the same gated pred
// context!
// Later, the error reporting may want to trace the path from
// the start state to the nondet state
if ( DFAOptimizer.MERGE_STOP_STATES &&
d.getNonDeterministicAlts()==null &&
!d.abortedDueToRecursionOverflow &&
!d.abortedDueToMultipleRecursiveAlts )
{
// check to see if we already have an accept state for this alt
// [must do this after we resolve nondeterminisms in general]
DFAState acceptStateForAlt = dfa.getAcceptState(alt);
if ( acceptStateForAlt!=null ) {
// we already have an accept state for alt;
// Are their gate sem pred contexts the same?
// For now we assume a braindead version: both must not
// have gated preds or share exactly same single gated pred.
// The equals() method is only defined on Predicate contexts not
// OR etc...
SemanticContext gatedPreds = d.getGatedPredicatesInNFAConfigurations();
SemanticContext existingStateGatedPreds =
acceptStateForAlt.getGatedPredicatesInNFAConfigurations();
if ( (gatedPreds==null && existingStateGatedPreds==null) ||
((gatedPreds!=null && existingStateGatedPreds!=null) &&
gatedPreds.equals(existingStateGatedPreds)) )
{
// make this d.statenumber point at old DFA state
dfa.setState(d.stateNumber, acceptStateForAlt);
dfa.removeState(d); // remove this state from unique DFA state set
d = acceptStateForAlt; // use old accept state; throw this one out
return d;
}
// else consider it a new accept state; fall through.
}
}
d.setAcceptState(true); // new accept state for alt
dfa.setAcceptState(alt, d);
return d;
}
/** If > 1 NFA configurations within this DFA state have identical
* NFA state and context, but differ in their predicted
* TODO update for new context suffix stuff 3-9-2005
* alternative then a single input sequence predicts multiple alts.
* The NFA decision is therefore syntactically indistinguishable
* from the left edge upon at least one input sequence. We may
* terminate the NFA to DFA conversion for these paths since no
* paths emanating from those NFA states can possibly separate
* these conjoined twins once interwined to make things
* deterministic (unless there are semantic predicates; see below).
*
* Upon a nondeterministic set of NFA configurations, we should
* report a problem to the grammar designer and resolve the issue
* by aribitrarily picking the first alternative (this usually
* ends up producing the most natural behavior). Pick the lowest
* alt number and just turn off all NFA configurations
* associated with the other alts. Rather than remove conflicting
* NFA configurations, I set the "resolved" bit so that future
* computations will ignore them. In this way, we maintain the
* complete DFA state with all its configurations, but prevent
* future DFA conversion operations from pursuing undesirable
* paths. Remember that we want to terminate DFA conversion as
* soon as we know the decision is deterministic *or*
* nondeterministic.
*
* [BTW, I have convinced myself that there can be at most one
* set of nondeterministic configurations in a DFA state. Only NFA
* configurations arising from the same input sequence can appear
* in a DFA state. There is no way to have another complete set
* of nondeterministic NFA configurations without another input
* sequence, which would reach a different DFA state. Therefore,
* the two nondeterministic NFA configuration sets cannot collide
* in the same DFA state.]
*
* Consider DFA state {(s|1),(s|2),(s|3),(t|3),(v|4)} where (s|a)
* is state 's' and alternative 'a'. Here, configuration set
* {(s|1),(s|2),(s|3)} predicts 3 different alts. Configurations
* (s|2) and (s|3) are "resolved", leaving {(s|1),(t|3),(v|4)} as
* items that must still be considered by the DFA conversion
* algorithm in DFA.findNewDFAStatesAndAddDFATransitions().
*
* Consider the following grammar where alts 1 and 2 are no
* problem because of the 2nd lookahead symbol. Alts 3 and 4 are
* identical and will therefore reach the rule end NFA state but
* predicting 2 different alts (no amount of future lookahead
* will render them deterministic/separable):
*
* a : A B
* | A C
* | A
* | A
* ;
*
* Here is a (slightly reduced) NFA of this grammar:
*
* (1)-A->(2)-B->(end)-EOF->(8)
* | ^
* (2)-A->(3)-C----|
* | ^
* (4)-A->(5)------|
* | ^
* (6)-A->(7)------|
*
* where (n) is NFA state n. To begin DFA conversion, the start
* state is created:
*
* {(1|1),(2|2),(4|3),(6|4)}
*
* Upon A, all NFA configurations lead to new NFA states yielding
* new DFA state:
*
* {(2|1),(3|2),(5|3),(7|4),(end|3),(end|4)}
*
* where the configurations with state end in them are added
* during the epsilon closure operation. State end predicts both
* alts 3 and 4. An error is reported, the latter configuration is
* flagged as resolved leaving the DFA state as:
*
* {(2|1),(3|2),(5|3),(7|4|resolved),(end|3),(end|4|resolved)}
*
* As NFA configurations are added to a DFA state during its
* construction, the reachable set of labels is computed. Here
* reachable is {B,C,EOF} because there is at least one NFA state
* in the DFA state that can transition upon those symbols.
*
* The final DFA looks like:
*
* {(1|1),(2|2),(4|3),(6|4)}
* |
* v
* {(2|1),(3|2),(5|3),(7|4),(end|3),(end|4)} -B-> (end|1)
* | |
* C ----EOF-> (8,3)
* |
* v
* (end|2)
*
* Upon AB, alt 1 is predicted. Upon AC, alt 2 is predicted.
* Upon A EOF, alt 3 is predicted. Alt 4 is not a viable
* alternative.
*
* The algorithm is essentially to walk all the configurations
* looking for a conflict of the form (s|i) and (s|j) for i!=j.
* Use a hash table to track state+context pairs for collisions
* so that we have O(n) to walk the n configurations looking for
* a conflict. Upon every conflict, track the alt number so
* we have a list of all nondeterministically predicted alts. Also
* track the minimum alt. Next go back over the configurations, setting
* the "resolved" bit for any that have an alt that is a member of
* the nondeterministic set. This will effectively remove any alts
* but the one we want from future consideration.
*
* See resolveWithSemanticPredicates()
*
* AMBIGUOUS TOKENS
*
* With keywords and ID tokens, there is an inherit ambiguity in that
* "int" can be matched by ID also. Each lexer rule has an EOT
* transition emanating from it which is used whenever the end of
* a rule is reached and another token rule did not invoke it. EOT
* is the only thing that can be seen next. If two rules are identical
* like "int" and "int" then the 2nd def is unreachable and you'll get
* a warning. We prevent a warning though for the keyword/ID issue as
* ID is still reachable. This can be a bit weird. '+' rule then a
* '+'|'+=' rule will fail to match '+' for the 2nd rule.
*
* If all NFA states in this DFA state are targets of EOT transitions,
* (and there is more than one state plus no unique alt is predicted)
* then DFA conversion will leave this state as a dead state as nothing
* can be reached from this state. To resolve the ambiguity, just do
* what flex and friends do: pick the first rule (alt in this case) to
* win. This means you should put keywords before the ID rule.
* If the DFA state has only one NFA state then there is no issue:
* it uniquely predicts one alt. :) Problem
* states will look like this during conversion:
*
* DFA 1:{9|1, 19|2, 14|3, 20|2, 23|2, 24|2, ...}-<EOT>->5:{41|3, 42|2}
*
* Worse, when you have two identical literal rules, you will see 3 alts
* in the EOT state (one for ID and one each for the identical rules).
*/
public void resolveNonDeterminisms(DFAState d) {
if ( debug ) {
System.out.println("resolveNonDeterminisms "+d.toString());
}
boolean conflictingLexerRules = false;
Set nondeterministicAlts = d.getNonDeterministicAlts();
if ( debug && nondeterministicAlts!=null ) {
System.out.println("nondet alts="+nondeterministicAlts);
}
// CHECK FOR AMBIGUOUS EOT (if |allAlts|>1 and EOT state, resolve)
// grab any config to see if EOT state; any other configs must
// transition on EOT to get to this DFA state as well so all
// states in d must be targets of EOT. These are the end states
// created in NFAFactory.build_EOFState
NFAConfiguration anyConfig = d.nfaConfigurations.get(0);
NFAState anyState = dfa.nfa.getState(anyConfig.state);
// if d is target of EOT and more than one predicted alt
// indicate that d is nondeterministic on all alts otherwise
// it looks like state has no problem
if ( anyState.isEOTTargetState() ) {
Set allAlts = d.getAltSet();
// is more than 1 alt predicted?
if ( allAlts!=null && allAlts.size()>1 ) {
nondeterministicAlts = allAlts;
// track Tokens rule issues differently than other decisions
if ( d.dfa.isTokensRuleDecision() ) {
dfa.probe.reportLexerRuleNondeterminism(d,allAlts);
//System.out.println("Tokens rule DFA state "+d+" nondeterministic");
conflictingLexerRules = true;
}
}
}
// if no problems return unless we aborted work on d to avoid inf recursion
if ( !d.abortedDueToRecursionOverflow && nondeterministicAlts==null ) {
return; // no problems, return
}
// if we're not a conflicting lexer rule and we didn't abort, report ambig
// We should get a report for abort so don't give another
if ( !d.abortedDueToRecursionOverflow && !conflictingLexerRules ) {
// TODO: with k=x option set, this is called twice for same state
dfa.probe.reportNondeterminism(d, nondeterministicAlts);
// TODO: how to turn off when it's only the FOLLOW that is
// conflicting. This used to shut off even alts i,j < n
// conflict warnings. :(
}
// ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE WITH SEMANTIC PREDICATES
boolean resolved =
tryToResolveWithSemanticPredicates(d, nondeterministicAlts);
if ( resolved ) {
if ( debug ) {
System.out.println("resolved DFA state "+d.stateNumber+" with pred");
}
d.resolvedWithPredicates = true;
dfa.probe.reportNondeterminismResolvedWithSemanticPredicate(d);
return;
}
// RESOLVE SYNTACTIC CONFLICT BY REMOVING ALL BUT ONE ALT
resolveByChoosingFirstAlt(d, nondeterministicAlts);
//System.out.println("state "+d.stateNumber+" resolved to alt "+winningAlt);
}
protected int resolveByChoosingFirstAlt(DFAState d, Set nondeterministicAlts) {
int winningAlt = 0;
if ( dfa.isGreedy() ) {
winningAlt = resolveByPickingMinAlt(d,nondeterministicAlts);
}
else {
// If nongreedy, the exit alt shout win, but only if it's
// involved in the nondeterminism!
/*
System.out.println("resolving exit alt for decision="+
dfa.decisionNumber+" state="+d);
System.out.println("nondet="+nondeterministicAlts);
System.out.println("exit alt "+exitAlt);
*/
int exitAlt = dfa.getNumberOfAlts();
if ( nondeterministicAlts.contains(Utils.integer(exitAlt)) ) {
// if nongreedy and exit alt is one of those nondeterministic alts
// predicted, resolve in favor of what follows block
winningAlt = resolveByPickingExitAlt(d,nondeterministicAlts);
}
else {
winningAlt = resolveByPickingMinAlt(d,nondeterministicAlts);
}
}
return winningAlt;
}
/** Turn off all configurations associated with the
* set of incoming nondeterministic alts except the min alt number.
* There may be many alts among the configurations but only turn off
* the ones with problems (other than the min alt of course).
*
* If nondeterministicAlts is null then turn off all configs 'cept those
* associated with the minimum alt.
*
* Return the min alt found.
*/
protected int resolveByPickingMinAlt(DFAState d, Set nondeterministicAlts) {
int min = Integer.MAX_VALUE;
if ( nondeterministicAlts!=null ) {
min = getMinAlt(nondeterministicAlts);
}
else {
min = d.minAltInConfigurations;
}
turnOffOtherAlts(d, min, nondeterministicAlts);
return min;
}
/** Resolve state d by choosing exit alt, which is same value as the
* number of alternatives. Return that exit alt.
*/
protected int resolveByPickingExitAlt(DFAState d, Set nondeterministicAlts) {
int exitAlt = dfa.getNumberOfAlts();
turnOffOtherAlts(d, exitAlt, nondeterministicAlts);
return exitAlt;
}
/** turn off all states associated with alts other than the good one
* (as long as they are one of the nondeterministic ones)
*/
protected static void turnOffOtherAlts(DFAState d, int min, Set<Integer> nondeterministicAlts) {
int numConfigs = d.nfaConfigurations.size();
for (int i = 0; i < numConfigs; i++) {
NFAConfiguration configuration = (NFAConfiguration)d.nfaConfigurations.get(i);
if ( configuration.alt!=min ) {
if ( nondeterministicAlts==null ||
nondeterministicAlts.contains(Utils.integer(configuration.alt)) )
{
configuration.resolved = true;
}
}
}
}
protected static int getMinAlt(Set<Integer> nondeterministicAlts) {
int min = Integer.MAX_VALUE;
for (Integer altI : nondeterministicAlts) {
int alt = altI.intValue();
if ( alt < min ) {
min = alt;
}
}
return min;
}
/** See if a set of nondeterministic alternatives can be disambiguated
* with the semantic predicate contexts of the alternatives.
*
* Without semantic predicates, syntactic conflicts are resolved
* by simply choosing the first viable alternative. In the
* presence of semantic predicates, you can resolve the issue by
* evaluating boolean expressions at run time. During analysis,
* this amounts to suppressing grammar error messages to the
* developer. NFA configurations are always marked as "to be
* resolved with predicates" so that
* DFA.findNewDFAStatesAndAddDFATransitions() will know to ignore
* these configurations and add predicate transitions to the DFA
* after adding token/char labels.
*
* During analysis, we can simply make sure that for n
* ambiguously predicted alternatives there are at least n-1
* unique predicate sets. The nth alternative can be predicted
* with "not" the "or" of all other predicates. NFA configurations without
* predicates are assumed to have the default predicate of
* "true" from a user point of view. When true is combined via || with
* another predicate, the predicate is a tautology and must be removed
* from consideration for disambiguation:
*
* a : b | B ; // hoisting p1||true out of rule b, yields no predicate
* b : {p1}? B | B ;
*
* This is done down in getPredicatesPerNonDeterministicAlt().
*/
protected boolean tryToResolveWithSemanticPredicates(DFAState d,
Set nondeterministicAlts)
{
Map<Integer, SemanticContext> altToPredMap =
getPredicatesPerNonDeterministicAlt(d, nondeterministicAlts);
if ( altToPredMap.size()==0 ) {
return false;
}
//System.out.println("nondeterministic alts with predicates: "+altToPredMap);
dfa.probe.reportAltPredicateContext(d, altToPredMap);
if ( nondeterministicAlts.size()-altToPredMap.size()>1 ) {
// too few predicates to resolve; just return
// TODO: actually do we need to gen error here?
return false;
}
// Handle case where 1 predicate is missing
// Case 1. Semantic predicates
// If the missing pred is on nth alt, !(union of other preds)==true
// so we can avoid that computation. If naked alt is ith, then must
// test it with !(union) since semantic predicated alts are order
// independent
// Case 2: Syntactic predicates
// The naked alt is always assumed to be true as the order of
// alts is the order of precedence. The naked alt will be a tautology
// anyway as it's !(union of other preds). This implies
// that there is no such thing as noviable alt for synpred edges
// emanating from a DFA state.
if ( altToPredMap.size()==nondeterministicAlts.size()-1 ) {
// if there are n-1 predicates for n nondeterministic alts, can fix
org.antlr.misc.BitSet ndSet = org.antlr.misc.BitSet.of(nondeterministicAlts);
org.antlr.misc.BitSet predSet = org.antlr.misc.BitSet.of(altToPredMap);
int nakedAlt = ndSet.subtract(predSet).getSingleElement();
SemanticContext nakedAltPred = null;
if ( nakedAlt == max(nondeterministicAlts) ) {
// the naked alt is the last nondet alt and will be the default clause
nakedAltPred = new SemanticContext.TruePredicate();
}
else {
// pretend naked alternative is covered with !(union other preds)
// unless it's a synpred since those have precedence same
// as alt order
SemanticContext unionOfPredicatesFromAllAlts =
getUnionOfPredicates(altToPredMap);
//System.out.println("all predicates "+unionOfPredicatesFromAllAlts);
if ( unionOfPredicatesFromAllAlts.isSyntacticPredicate() ) {
nakedAltPred = new SemanticContext.TruePredicate();
}
else {
nakedAltPred =
SemanticContext.not(unionOfPredicatesFromAllAlts);
}
}
//System.out.println("covering naked alt="+nakedAlt+" with "+nakedAltPred);
altToPredMap.put(Utils.integer(nakedAlt), nakedAltPred);
// set all config with alt=nakedAlt to have the computed predicate
int numConfigs = d.nfaConfigurations.size();
for (int i = 0; i < numConfigs; i++) {
NFAConfiguration configuration = (NFAConfiguration)d.nfaConfigurations.get(i);
if ( configuration.alt == nakedAlt ) {
configuration.semanticContext = nakedAltPred;
}
}
}
if ( altToPredMap.size()==nondeterministicAlts.size() ) {
// RESOLVE CONFLICT by picking one NFA configuration for each alt
// and setting its resolvedWithPredicate flag
// First, prevent a recursion warning on this state due to
// pred resolution
if ( d.abortedDueToRecursionOverflow ) {
d.dfa.probe.removeRecursiveOverflowState(d);
}
int numConfigs = d.nfaConfigurations.size();
for (int i = 0; i < numConfigs; i++) {
NFAConfiguration configuration = (NFAConfiguration)d.nfaConfigurations.get(i);
SemanticContext semCtx = (SemanticContext)
altToPredMap.get(Utils.integer(configuration.alt));
if ( semCtx!=null ) {
// resolve (first found) with pred
// and remove alt from problem list
configuration.resolveWithPredicate = true;
configuration.semanticContext = semCtx; // reset to combined
altToPredMap.remove(Utils.integer(configuration.alt));
// notify grammar that we've used the preds contained in semCtx
if ( semCtx.isSyntacticPredicate() ) {
dfa.nfa.grammar.synPredUsedInDFA(dfa, semCtx);
}
}
else if ( nondeterministicAlts.contains(Utils.integer(configuration.alt)) ) {
// resolve all configurations for nondeterministic alts
// for which there is no predicate context by turning it off
configuration.resolved = true;
}
}
return true;
}
return false; // couldn't fix the problem with predicates
}
/** Return a mapping from nondeterministc alt to combined list of predicates.
* If both (s|i|semCtx1) and (t|i|semCtx2) exist, then the proper predicate
* for alt i is semCtx1||semCtx2 because you have arrived at this single
* DFA state via two NFA paths, both of which have semantic predicates.
* We ignore deterministic alts because syntax alone is sufficient
* to predict those. Do not include their predicates.
*
* Alts with no predicate are assumed to have {true}? pred.
*
* When combining via || with "true", all predicates are removed from
* consideration since the expression will always be true and hence
* not tell us how to resolve anything. So, if any NFA configuration
* in this DFA state does not have a semantic context, the alt cannot
* be resolved with a predicate.
*
* If nonnull, incidentEdgeLabel tells us what NFA transition label
* we did a reach on to compute state d. d may have insufficient
* preds, so we really want this for the error message.
*/
protected Map<Integer, SemanticContext> getPredicatesPerNonDeterministicAlt(DFAState d,
Set nondeterministicAlts)
{
// map alt to combined SemanticContext
Map<Integer, SemanticContext> altToPredicateContextMap =
new HashMap<Integer, SemanticContext>();
// init the alt to predicate set map
Map<Integer, Set<SemanticContext>> altToSetOfContextsMap =
new HashMap<Integer, Set<SemanticContext>>();
for (Iterator it = nondeterministicAlts.iterator(); it.hasNext();) {
Integer altI = (Integer) it.next();
altToSetOfContextsMap.put(altI, new HashSet<SemanticContext>());
}
/*
List<Label> sampleInputLabels = d.dfa.probe.getSampleNonDeterministicInputSequence(d);
String input = d.dfa.probe.getInputSequenceDisplay(sampleInputLabels);
System.out.println("sample input: "+input);
*/
// for each configuration, create a unique set of predicates
// Also, track the alts with at least one uncovered configuration
// (one w/o a predicate); tracks tautologies like p1||true
Map<Integer, Set<Token>> altToLocationsReachableWithoutPredicate = new HashMap<Integer, Set<Token>>();
Set<Integer> nondetAltsWithUncoveredConfiguration = new HashSet<Integer>();
//System.out.println("configs="+d.nfaConfigurations);
//System.out.println("configs with preds?"+d.atLeastOneConfigurationHasAPredicate);
//System.out.println("configs with preds="+d.configurationsWithPredicateEdges);
int numConfigs = d.nfaConfigurations.size();
for (int i = 0; i < numConfigs; i++) {
NFAConfiguration configuration = (NFAConfiguration)d.nfaConfigurations.get(i);
Integer altI = Utils.integer(configuration.alt);
// if alt is nondeterministic, combine its predicates
if ( nondeterministicAlts.contains(altI) ) {
// if there is a predicate for this NFA configuration, OR in
if ( configuration.semanticContext !=
SemanticContext.EMPTY_SEMANTIC_CONTEXT )
{
Set<SemanticContext> predSet = altToSetOfContextsMap.get(altI);
predSet.add(configuration.semanticContext);
}
else {
// if no predicate, but it's part of nondeterministic alt
// then at least one path exists not covered by a predicate.
// must remove predicate for this alt; track incomplete alts
nondetAltsWithUncoveredConfiguration.add(altI);
/*
NFAState s = dfa.nfa.getState(configuration.state);
System.out.println("###\ndec "+dfa.decisionNumber+" alt "+configuration.alt+
" enclosing rule for nfa state not covered "+
s.enclosingRule);
if ( s.associatedASTNode!=null ) {
System.out.println("token="+s.associatedASTNode.token);
}
System.out.println("nfa state="+s);
if ( s.incidentEdgeLabel!=null && Label.intersect(incidentEdgeLabel, s.incidentEdgeLabel) ) {
Set<Token> locations = altToLocationsReachableWithoutPredicate.get(altI);
if ( locations==null ) {
locations = new HashSet<Token>();
altToLocationsReachableWithoutPredicate.put(altI, locations);
}
locations.add(s.associatedASTNode.token);
}
*/
}
}
}
// For each alt, OR together all unique predicates associated with
// all configurations
// Also, track the list of incompletely covered alts: those alts
// with at least 1 predicate and at least one configuration w/o a
// predicate. We want this in order to report to the decision probe.
List<Integer> incompletelyCoveredAlts = new ArrayList<Integer>();
for (Iterator it = nondeterministicAlts.iterator(); it.hasNext();) {
Integer altI = (Integer) it.next();
Set<SemanticContext> contextsForThisAlt = altToSetOfContextsMap.get(altI);
if ( nondetAltsWithUncoveredConfiguration.contains(altI) ) { // >= 1 config has no ctx
if ( contextsForThisAlt.size()>0 ) { // && at least one pred
incompletelyCoveredAlts.add(altI); // this alt incompleted covered
}
continue; // don't include at least 1 config has no ctx
}
SemanticContext combinedContext = null;
for (Iterator itrSet = contextsForThisAlt.iterator(); itrSet.hasNext();) {
SemanticContext ctx = (SemanticContext) itrSet.next();
combinedContext =
SemanticContext.or(combinedContext,ctx);
}
altToPredicateContextMap.put(altI, combinedContext);
}
if ( incompletelyCoveredAlts.size()>0 ) {
/*
System.out.println("prob in dec "+dfa.decisionNumber+" state="+d);
FASerializer serializer = new FASerializer(dfa.nfa.grammar);
String result = serializer.serialize(dfa.startState);
System.out.println("dfa: "+result);
System.out.println("incomplete alts: "+incompletelyCoveredAlts);
System.out.println("nondet="+nondeterministicAlts);
System.out.println("nondetAltsWithUncoveredConfiguration="+ nondetAltsWithUncoveredConfiguration);
System.out.println("altToCtxMap="+altToSetOfContextsMap);
System.out.println("altToPredicateContextMap="+altToPredicateContextMap);
*/
for (int i = 0; i < numConfigs; i++) {
NFAConfiguration configuration = (NFAConfiguration)d.nfaConfigurations.get(i);
Integer altI = Utils.integer(configuration.alt);
if ( incompletelyCoveredAlts.contains(altI) &&
configuration.semanticContext == SemanticContext.EMPTY_SEMANTIC_CONTEXT )
{
NFAState s = dfa.nfa.getState(configuration.state);
/*
System.out.print("nondet config w/o context "+configuration+
" incident "+(s.incidentEdgeLabel!=null?s.incidentEdgeLabel.toString(dfa.nfa.grammar):null));
if ( s.associatedASTNode!=null ) {
System.out.print(" token="+s.associatedASTNode.token);
}
else System.out.println();
*/
// We want to report getting to an NFA state with an
// incoming label, unless it's EOF, w/o a predicate.
if ( s.incidentEdgeLabel!=null && s.incidentEdgeLabel.label != Label.EOF ) {
if ( s.associatedASTNode==null || s.associatedASTNode.token==null ) {
ErrorManager.internalError("no AST/token for nonepsilon target w/o predicate");
}
else {
Set<Token> locations = altToLocationsReachableWithoutPredicate.get(altI);
if ( locations==null ) {
locations = new HashSet<Token>();
altToLocationsReachableWithoutPredicate.put(altI, locations);
}
locations.add(s.associatedASTNode.token);
}
}
}
}
dfa.probe.reportIncompletelyCoveredAlts(d,
altToLocationsReachableWithoutPredicate);
}
return altToPredicateContextMap;
}
/** OR together all predicates from the alts. Note that the predicate
* for an alt could itself be a combination of predicates.
*/
protected static SemanticContext getUnionOfPredicates(Map altToPredMap) {
Iterator iter;
SemanticContext unionOfPredicatesFromAllAlts = null;
iter = altToPredMap.values().iterator();
while ( iter.hasNext() ) {
SemanticContext semCtx = (SemanticContext)iter.next();
if ( unionOfPredicatesFromAllAlts==null ) {
unionOfPredicatesFromAllAlts = semCtx;
}
else {
unionOfPredicatesFromAllAlts =
SemanticContext.or(unionOfPredicatesFromAllAlts,semCtx);
}
}
return unionOfPredicatesFromAllAlts;
}
/** for each NFA config in d, look for "predicate required" sign set
* during nondeterminism resolution.
*
* Add the predicate edges sorted by the alternative number; I'm fairly
* sure that I could walk the configs backwards so they are added to
* the predDFATarget in the right order, but it's best to make sure.
* Predicates succeed in the order they are specifed. Alt i wins
* over alt i+1 if both predicates are true.
*/
protected void addPredicateTransitions(DFAState d) {
List configsWithPreds = new ArrayList();
// get a list of all configs with predicates
int numConfigs = d.nfaConfigurations.size();
for (int i = 0; i < numConfigs; i++) {
NFAConfiguration c = (NFAConfiguration)d.nfaConfigurations.get(i);
if ( c.resolveWithPredicate ) {
configsWithPreds.add(c);
}
}
// Sort ascending according to alt; alt i has higher precedence than i+1
Collections.sort(configsWithPreds,
new Comparator() {
public int compare(Object a, Object b) {
NFAConfiguration ca = (NFAConfiguration)a;
NFAConfiguration cb = (NFAConfiguration)b;
if ( ca.alt < cb.alt ) return -1;
else if ( ca.alt > cb.alt ) return 1;
return 0;
}
});
List predConfigsSortedByAlt = configsWithPreds;
// Now, we can add edges emanating from d for these preds in right order
for (int i = 0; i < predConfigsSortedByAlt.size(); i++) {
NFAConfiguration c = (NFAConfiguration)predConfigsSortedByAlt.get(i);
DFAState predDFATarget = d.dfa.getAcceptState(c.alt);
if ( predDFATarget==null ) {
predDFATarget = dfa.newState(); // create if not there.
// create a new DFA state that is a target of the predicate from d
predDFATarget.addNFAConfiguration(dfa.nfa.getState(c.state),
c.alt,
c.context,
c.semanticContext);
predDFATarget.setAcceptState(true);
dfa.setAcceptState(c.alt, predDFATarget);
DFAState existingState = dfa.addState(predDFATarget);
if ( predDFATarget != existingState ) {
// already there...use/return the existing DFA state that
// is a target of this predicate. Make this state number
// point at the existing state
dfa.setState(predDFATarget.stateNumber, existingState);
predDFATarget = existingState;
}
}
// add a transition to pred target from d
d.addTransition(predDFATarget, new PredicateLabel(c.semanticContext));
}
}
protected void initContextTrees(int numberOfAlts) {
contextTrees = new NFAContext[numberOfAlts];
for (int i = 0; i < contextTrees.length; i++) {
int alt = i+1;
// add a dummy root node so that an NFA configuration can
// always point at an NFAContext. If a context refers to this
// node then it implies there is no call stack for
// that configuration
contextTrees[i] = new NFAContext(null, null);
}
}
public static int max(Set s) {
if ( s==null ) {
return Integer.MIN_VALUE;
}
int i = 0;
int m = 0;
for (Iterator it = s.iterator(); it.hasNext();) {
i++;
Integer I = (Integer) it.next();
if ( i==1 ) { // init m with first value
m = I.intValue();
continue;
}
if ( I.intValue()>m ) {
m = I.intValue();
}
}
return m;
}
}