Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes...
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 14:03:56 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <87le0c4d6r.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <vab101$3er$1@reader1.panix.com> <874j75zftu.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <valrj7$367a8$2@dont-email.me> <87mskwy9t1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <vanq4h$3iieb$1@dont-email.me> <875xrkxlgo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <vapitn$3u1ub$1@dont-email.me> <87o75bwlp8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <vaps06$3vg8l$1@dont-email.me> <871q27weeh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <20240829083200.195@kylheku.com> <87v7zjuyd8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <20240829084851.962@kylheku.com> <87mskvuxe9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <vaq9tu$1te8$1@dont-email.me> <875xrivrg0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <20240829191404.887@kylheku.com> <86cylqw2f8.fsf@linuxsc.com> <871q2568vl.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <20240830232138.772@kylheku.com> <vavhbn$12i2n$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 23:03:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="78f6e35217d9802ff674987bcdbe52ec"; logging-data="1215711"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19GyyrO3FpR9cPv75+NKCf/"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:i47SswATeNuSX7cbXeJYv6mjliA= sha1:i+G5QEntx39uwx/YeG/iawaMwvQ=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:388058

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> On 8/31/24 03:08, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2024-08-30, Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>>> However, the compilers I've tried produce the same diagnostic (not a
>>> syntax error message) for both. Probably they use a tweaked grammar
>>> that allows more a general expression as the LHS of an assignment,
>>> and catch errors later in semantic analysis, for the purpose of
>>> producing diagnostics that are easier to understand. It's obvious
>>> that in `x + 1 = y`, the programmer (probably) intended `x + 1`
>>> to be the LHS of an assignment. These compilers (I tried gcc,
>>> clang, and tcc) are clever enough to recognize that.
>>
>> A standard operator precedence parsing algorithm such as Shunting Yard
>> cannot help but parse that.
>
> True, which is an example of why a precedence parsing algorithm is
> inappropriate for parsing C, which is not defined in terms of precedence
> levels.

Perhaps -- but as long as it's used in a way that allows all syntax
errors and constraint violations to be diagnosed, it's not a problem.

I haven't looked into what parsing algorithms any existing compilers use.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */