From dallas.a.clement@gmail.com Tue Oct  9 00:29:53 2007
Received: from smtp1.rug.nl (smtp1.rug.nl [129.125.50.11])
	by suffix.rc.rug.nl (8.14.1/8.14.1/Debian-9) with SMTP id l98MTrxe030265
	for <frank@suffix.rc.rug.nl>; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 00:29:53 +0200
Received: from smtp1.rug.nl ([129.125.50.11])
 by smtp1.rug.nl (SMSSMTP 4.1.0.19) with SMTP id M2007100900294623523
 for <frank@suffix.rc.rug.nl>; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:29:46 +0200
Received: from mail3.rug.nl (mail3.rug.nl [129.125.50.14])
	by smtp1.rug.nl (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l98MTkQa005320
	for <frank@suffix.rc.rug.nl>; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 00:29:46 +0200 (MEST)
Resent-Message-Id: <200710082229.l98MTkQa005320@smtp1.rug.nl>
Received: from <p108703@rug.nl>
  by mail3.rug.nl (CommuniGate Pro RULES 5.1.12)
  with RULES id 55899656; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:29:46 +0200
X-Autogenerated: Mirror
Resent-From: <F.B.Brokken@rug.nl>
Resent-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:29:46 +0200
Received: from smtp2.rug.nl ([129.125.50.12] verified)
  by mail3.rug.nl (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.12)
  with SMTP id 55899655 for f.b.brokken@rug.nl; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:29:46 +0200
Received: from smtp2.rug.nl ([129.125.50.12])
 by smtp2.rug.nl (SMSSMTP 4.1.11.41) with SMTP id M2007100900294526988
 for <f.b.brokken@rug.nl>; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:29:45 +0200
Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.182])
	by smtp2.rug.nl (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l98MTiRH013056
	for <f.b.brokken@rug.nl>; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 00:29:44 +0200 (MEST)
Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id f47so2710922pye
        for <f.b.brokken@rug.nl>; Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:from:reply-to:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:organization:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=h3Gfp8lzdKEqJY0jAw7jqzoOPcybb3kAoQ3AYA6Vq3U=;
        b=GVlqjHLC5sLillOXZljVFfhCLivTZyduPh/m94ehJfz7ECbSCEVye8UQvi+WhbSBei+PFXiCC5AHsu0SKKZbzbHSCAyDmPWrB7SCmMZDaSJQkS0oi7h5IOQOUVjSNEGeYEqejjfI5i1M8nvHMJspCJvIt80RryoQgk5p8lGqkss=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:subject:from:reply-to:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:organization:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=ZN59LY0X3K/K0dycwmL5rRC1GNCTbVycF03b6F2HaiuGSUDzViwlAHVjL9Fgv5KcXGCDQc1zhu7FRk1kqqmapIMhrP0Xl46/Hth6+mi2AwshAsqe9CTcQIOzUX2zdXf3qcjw6clQcddRiqNdjjJFoFgxiREL4XJBMKMv+8y6TtE=
Received: by 10.35.33.15 with SMTP id l15mr12560856pyj.1191882583426;
        Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from debian.local ( [70.250.157.38])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y64sm7923418pyg.2007.10.08.15.29.41
        (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
        Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:29:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Small bisonc++ question
From: Dallas Clement <dallas.a.clement@gmail.com>
Reply-To: dallas.a.clement@gmail.com
To: f.b.brokken@rug.nl
In-Reply-To: <20071008221446.GD27245@rc.rug.nl>
References: <20070919073747.GC17408@rc.rug.nl>
	 <1191222419.3468.43.camel@localhost> <20071001190610.GA6195@rc.rug.nl>
	 <1191278771.3605.15.camel@localhost> <20071003072550.GC29648@rc.rug.nl>
	 <1191450509.3474.48.camel@localhost> <20071004064310.GB23564@rc.rug.nl>
	 <1191505247.3505.15.camel@localhost> <20071005101005.GA25725@rc.rug.nl>
	 <1191853606.3413.47.camel@localhost>  <20071008221446.GD27245@rc.rug.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Clements
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 12:29:39 -0500
Message-Id: <1191864579.3413.58.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Scanned-By: milter-spamc/1.4.366 (smtp1.rug.nl [129.125.50.11]); Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:29:46 +0200
X-Scanned-By: milter-spamc/1.4.366 (smtp2.rug.nl [129.125.50.12]); Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:29:45 +0200
X-Spam-Status: NO, hits=-7.00 required=4.00
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software on "smtp1.rug.nl".  Questions: postmaster@rug.nl
  Content analysis details:   (-7.0 points, 4.0 required)
  USER_IN_WHITELIST=-7
  __
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1238
Lines: 54


Frank,

I've narrowed things down to one particular rule.  It seems that the
following rule with all of its alternatives is causing problems.

scoped_identifier:
   TOK_IDENTIFIER 
   {
   }
|
   TOK_SCOPE_OPERATOR TOK_IDENTIFIER
   {
   }
|
   scoped_identifier TOK_SCOPE_OPERATOR TOK_IDENTIFIER
   {
   }
;

If I simplify this rule to the following, I do not have any problems
with semantic values not being saved on the stack correctly.

scoped_identifier:
   TOK_IDENTIFIER 
   {
   }
;

It seems that these extra alternatives are confusing the parser.  Do you
have any idea why this could be?

Thanks,

Dallas

On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 00:14 +0200, Frank B. Brokken wrote:
> Dear Dallas Clement, you wrote:
> > 
> > Hello Frank,
> > 
> > I just wanted to give you another update.  I took the example that you
> > provided and started tweaking it to resemble my grammar which manifested
> > the problem I reported earlier.
> > 
> > The good news is that I am unable to reproduce the problem, using the
> > Base and SemVal classes you defined in the example.
> 
> Apparently this e-mail and my answer to your previous one crossed each other
> :-) 
> 
> Thanks for this e-mail, and good luck. Don't hesitate to call again!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
