23

I have this ANTLR 4 grammar:

constantFixedExpresion : term (('+'|'-') term)+;

term : factor (('*'|'//'|'REM')factor)+;

factor : ('+'|'-')*
           ( wholeNumberConstant
           | constantFixedExpresion
           | 'TOFIXED' (stringConstant | bitCodeConstant)      
           | identifier)
         ('FIT'constantFixedExpresion)*;

I get the following error:

error(119): LanguageA.g4::: The following sets of rules are mutually left-recursive [constantFixedExpresion, factor, term]

I tried so many ways but can't fix it. What is the problem and how can I solve it?

topher
  • 14,790
  • 7
  • 54
  • 70
Alican
  • 261
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

1 Answers1

35

Antlr is a LL(*) parser, which is in many ways "better" than a LL(k) parser, but still has many of its disavantages. One of these being the fact it can't deal with left-recursion (in fact, the version 4 can deal with left-recursion within the same rule). What the error is saying is that you have a left-recursion of a grammar, a bane for the LL parsers.

This is caused by this construction in your grammar:

constantFixedExpression: term ...;
term: factor ...;
factor: ('+' | '-')* (constantFixedExpression | ...) ...;

Since the * operator means 0 or more, I can instantiate it with 0, so the parser will do this: "try constantFixedExpression, so it needs to try term, so it needs to try factor, so it needs to try constantFixedEXpression, so it [...]" and you've got yourself an infinite loop.

Fortunately, context-free formal grammars have an equivalent transformation for removing left-recursion! It can be expressed generically by:

A -> Aa | b
-- becomes --
A -> bR
R -> aR | ε

Or in Antlr notation:

A: Aa | b;
// becomes
A: bR;
R: (aR)?;

More information about this process can be found in automaton/grammars books or in the Wikipedia.

I'll leave correcting your grammar with the refactoration to remove left-recursion as your work. However, I want to touch in another point: Antlr 4 can do left-recursion! As I mentioned, the version 4 can deal with left-recursion within the same rule. There are ways to indicate precedence and associativity of operators other than directly in parsing, as you're doing, in Antlr4. Let's see how it works:

expr: NUMBER
      |<assoc=right> expr '^' expr
      | expr '*' expr
      | expr '/' expr
      | expr '+' expr
      | expr '-' expr;

This is an example of a basic calculator grammar. The operators at the top are those with highest precedence, and those at the bottom are of lower precedence. This means 2+2*3 will be parsed as 2+(2*3) rather than (2+2)*3. The <assoc=right> construction means the operator in right-associative, so 1^2^3 will be parsed as 1^(2^3) rather than (1^2)^3.

As you can see, it is much easier to specify operators with left-recursion, so Antlr 4 is of big help in these moments! I recommend re-writing your grammar to make use of this feature.

Mephy
  • 2,978
  • 3
  • 25
  • 31
  • I needed expr as optional, so something like expr? '*' expr? . But this is giving me same error. – Bond Oct 27 '17 at 16:08
  • @Bond do you really need it? Is the string `*******` a valid expression? – Mephy Oct 27 '17 at 16:22
  • I think you meant: `R -> aR | ε` The way you wrote it the sequence "bab" is valid in the right-recursion version but not in the left-recursion one. – Fox Nov 04 '18 at 14:35
  • 1
    I swear, for a moment I thought this was a @JonSkeet reply because it was so thorough and nicely broken down. – WiredWiz Feb 11 '20 at 17:13