reasoning.md

Hand-Written C11 Parser with AST and API

The request is for a comprehensive C11 parser with syntactic parsing, an AST, and traversal API. Other specifics include lexing, parsing from scratch, and a detailed main program for testing.

Searched for handwritten C parser C11 example

I'm thinking through the complexities of parsing C grammar, considering lexical analysis, recursive descent parsing, and potential semantic challenges.

I'm setting up token and AST node data structures to streamline parsing for a C code interpreter or compiler. This setup includes token types, lexeme storage, and AST node arrangement.

Breaking down enumeration and function definitions in parsing, considering AST structures for types, and mapping out traversal methods for neat code walkthroughs.

I'm thinking through demonstrating AST construction and traversal, covering common grammar features, and omitting rare constructs for clarity and efficiency.

Searched for toy C compiler recursive descent example

Not finding full code for all features; exploring expression parser code for a subset. Considering a high expectation for comprehensive support.

I'm recalling some parser details from memory and planning to find partial references or search for "C parser in 500 lines" or "simple C parser code".

Searched for simple C AST parser example

Maintaining a global type name list, parsing mixed declarations and statements, and treating ambiguous identifiers cautiously.

I'm working through constructing the AST with node types for expressions, statements, and declarations. Considering dynamic memory allocation for identifiers and literals.

I'm refining the parser to manage token streams efficiently, using peek and pushback to distinguish declarations from expressions, and ensuring precise identification of declaration-specifiers.

I'm outlining the strategy: sequence sections methodically, ensuring clarity with headings, focusing on completeness, and making the code easy to combine and run.

Piecing together the parser with clear headings, logical sections, and incremental build-to-test. Avoiding infinite loops and segmentation faults by addressing minor logic errors.

This user is tackling warning issues with C code, focusing on backslash handling in string literals and character constants. Adjusting raw string handling will likely resolve these multichar and incomplete character constant errors.

I'm piecing together the use of double backslashes in Python strings to correctly represent escape sequences for C code. It's interesting to see how this preserves the intended formatting while ensuring accuracy.

I'm looking at why the compiler flags multi-character character constant warnings for '\t'{data-start="86" end="92"}. It's puzzling, as this constant should be valid. Hm, I wonder if it's due to potential misinterpretation or coding syntax issues.

I'm examining how Python might interpret escape sequences when printing strings to ensure accurate display.

I'm examining how Python's repr string shows \\t{data-start="45" end="50"} for a single backslash and t{data-start="78" end="81"}. Considering manual replacements for known sequences, being cautious about legitimate patterns.

I'm working through string escapes in C code, making sure double backslashes are preserved. Adjustments involve replacing multi-level quoting with triple quoting and skipping whitespace efficiently.

I'm addressing quoting issues in Python and C code. Consider manually replacing or splitting strings for accuracy. Progressing with each step to ensure clarity and functionality.

Organizing floating-point number handling, I'm setting accuracy thresholds and verifying logic.

I'm mapping out the position of "return token;" within the function, likely near the character representation.

OK, let me see. I'm checking the endpoint of the char code and considering the occurrence of return token;{data-start="93" end="108"}.

First, let's think through the tricky bits in string literals: single and double quotes and escape sequences like backslashes. Ensuring C string syntax is spot on is our main goal.

I'm figuring out how the condition in the code checks for escaped characters, using raw string literals and double quotes.

I'm re-evaluating the search for helpful ways to find \"{data-start="54" end="58"} or \"{data-start="62" end="66"} in code.

I'm analyzing 9458{data-start="14" end="20"} and speculating it might relate to code, like if (*src == '\\' && *(src+1) == '\"'){data-start="67" end="106"}. This seems logical given the error's unusual syntax.

I'm working on how declarators tie into AST nodes and planning functions for variables and prototypes. Next steps involve finalizing AST processing.

I'm thinking through defining AST nodes for type specifiers, like 'int' or 'struct X'. It's interesting to consider how to best represent these type details in the AST.

I'm working on integrating type details into AST nodes, refining traversal APIs, and planning new functions for parsing type names and casts to ensure clear AST structure.

I'm working through parsing casts, balancing type detection and expression parsing. Considering typedefs and grammar rules to reduce ambiguity and ensure accurate AST representation.

I'm detailing the process to parse switch statements in C. This involves parsing case labels and statements, maintaining a linked list of statements, and managing AST nodes like AST_CASE and AST_DEFAULT.

I'm adjusting our parsing strategy to handle declarations, including typedefs, in an AST-friendly way. This involves using AST_DECL or AST_VAR_DECL nodes and focusing on bases and pointers/types.

I'm focusing on how to represent complex type structures, like function pointers, in AST nodes. Options include using simplified type strings or creating detailed nodes for each type feature.

I'm focusing on parsing function parameters, managing variadic parameters, and preparing to parse declaration specifications for local and external declarations in the parsing process.

I'm tapping into intricate details of parsing type declarations for built-ins, structs, unions, and enums. Constructing AST nodes ensures precise type representation.

I'm working through pointers, identifiers, and array suffixes in declarators, ensuring accurate parsing and AST node creation for variables and function parameters. Progress is steady and enlightening.

I'm refining function declaration parsing to handle pointer grouping effectively. This involves summing outer and inner pointer counts to accurately represent complex types.

I'm refining how to represent function declarations and pointers in AST nodes, ensuring intricate details are captured while maintaining parsing efficiency. Progress is evident in the structured approach.

I'm detailing the parsing of function pointers, ensuring the AST nodes represent the correct return types and parameter lists, considering both outer and inner pointer counts for accuracy.

I'm thinking through the nuances of parsing and constructing AST nodes for variable declarations, handling pointers, arrays, function definitions, and typedefs to ensure precise type representation.

I'm linking variable initializers with expression parsing, ensuring precise handling of grammar. This approach improves parsing efficiency and enhances the accuracy of the analysis.

Noticing the need to manage additional tokens like ellipses and preprocessors. Currenly verifying lexing for typical syntax elements, including whitespace.

I'm gathering thoughts on refining and formulating new parser functions, particularly for external declarations and translation units, to manage global states and enhance declarator handling.

Piecing together binary and unary operators, ensuring precise evaluation. For instance, handling postfix unary operators like increment and decrement distinct from other unary operators.

I'm detailing the AST traversal logic, categorizing node types like functions, statements, and expressions. Each node type is systematically broken down, considering various elements and structures.

I'm refining the AST data structure, creating a clear type union, and ensuring precise memory management during traversal to prevent leaks and maintain accuracy.

I discovered that the token type enum was unearthed instead of the AST, indicating a mismatch.

I'm thinking of renaming AST_TYPE_DECL to AST_TYPEDEF and adding AST_TYPE_NAME, AST_POINTER_TYPE, AST_ARRAY_TYPE, and AST_FUNC_TYPE to the enum list, ensuring consistency within the program.

I'm pulling together if mentioning struct/union is vital since AST_TYPEDEF pertains to typedef.

I'm thinking of a union for identifier, string_literal, char_literal, and number, considering reused fields for different node types.

Noticed the union in the code seems partial, suggesting an incomplete definition.

I'm starting to position various fields like program{data-start="45" end="54"} and type_def{data-start="59" end="69"} into the union structure. Their placement aims for clarity and logical grouping without overlapping names. This approach helps prevent conflicts and ensures efficient union usage.

I'm analyzing union listing options and thinking about placing elements after "func_def" or middle of the union. This seems to guide the decision effectively.

I'm piecing together the union order for the program, taking a closer look at each component and its logical sequence, ensuring the integration of elements aligns with the overall structure.

OK, let's see. parseDeclSpecs and parseDeclarator might still be under construction or declared but not fully coded yet.

Mapping out how to replace or fill parseExternalDeclaration in code_mod, as its implementation post-prototype needs completion.

I'm gathering info on completing parse functions like parseTranslationUnit and parseExternalDeclaration, ensuring non-conflicting integration with existing code.

I'm focusing on securing the prototypes for clarity and avoiding duplication. The goal is to confirm their placement, preferably before implementation, to maintain consistency and prevent errors.

I'm focusing on integrating a main function to call parsing and testing, while addressing file handling and string escape complexities.

The warnings persisted despite replacing instances in code_mod. It's possible they aren't saved correctly or have duplicates. Further investigation and rectification are needed.

I'm working through escaping double slashes for \t{data-start="48" end="52"}. Considering single vs. double quotes for precise replacement.

I'm digging into why *src == '\t'{data-start="21" end="35"} is flagged as a multi-char constant. The root cause seems to be the presence of double backslashes, likely from the file's content.

OK, let's sort out why code_mod replaced double slashes instead of single slashes. Adjusting the replacement should sort this issue.

OK, let's see. It seems lexToken is encountering issues with '\0', possibly mistaking it for characters 'slash' and '0' separately.

Considering the *src == '\\0'{data-start="16" end="31"} from the warning and seeing *src == '\0'{data-start="60" end="74"} might be an anomaly.

I'm noticing recurring problems with backslashes in conditions. For instance, a backslash followed by a double quote or another non-null character needs careful handling.

Spotting incorrect char literal syntax and aiming for a code snippet fix.

Taking a closer look at the code, there's an interesting malformed char literal. Refocusing the search might uncover other intriguing details.

Updating the code to correct the empty condition by identifying char literal section and replacing it appropriately.

I'm noting that the token.type assignment aligns with the char literal section's end, while earlier tokens like 'if (*src == '''' and 'char c' suggest the block spans from an 'if' around 10600 to a return at 11200.

OK, let's correct the backslash in front of the single quote in the if (*src == '\''){data-start="68" end="87"} statement to ensure proper syntax.

Examining the character literal switch, focusing on escape patterns and their handling within the code.

I'm reconstructing the char literal code to handle escape sequences and allocate lexeme correctly. This involves identifying and handling escape sequences, ensuring proper lexeme allocation, and returning the corrected token.

Examining code мыслей

I'm mapping out replacing the return token;{data-start="30" end="45"} line in the code block, ensuring the closing brace and subsequent comment are included. This avoids duplication and keeps the original if{data-start="181" end="185"} block intact.

I'm examining a brace and comment punctuation in the code, deciding to replace the segment from the starting character literal index to the closing brace index plus one.

I'm refining the Python string to ensure the backslash appears correctly in the output. Considering double backslashes to prevent unintentional closing of the string.

I'm examining the output to see why a backslash appears before the quote in the code printing if (*src == '\''){data-start="94" end="113"}.

Examining the string, I encountered unusual escaping of single quotes and backslashes, which could lead to unexpected outcomes or malformed strings.

I'm checking escape sequences are correctly formatted in the code. For instance, if (*src == '\\''){data-start="81" end="101"} and if (*src == '\'') src++;{data-start="106" end="132"} need proper handling.

OK, let's map out if if (*src == '\\''){data-start="21" end="41"} in repr uses '\\''{data-start="55" end="62"}. Also, check if case '\'' looks the same.

OK, let's see. The printed and stored sequences align, confirming the correct escape sequence processing in strings. The output matches the expected format.

OK, let me see. The snippet's syntax, especially escaping quotes and backslashes, looks spot on. The next step is integrating this verified code into code_mod{data-start="150" end="160"}.

OK, let me see. The code had '*src == '\\\\'{data-start="29" end="46"} at line 275. This seems off since single quotes in pattern match a single character, not two. Ok, let me see. This needs rechecking.

"Unraveling complexity due to escapes."

Hmm, that's interesting. The error suggests a double escape is solving a single escape, likely in lexToken{data-start="98" end="108"}. Fixing it should resolve the issue.

I'm noting the progress on analyzing the string literal logic, specifically around the character literal "\", which aligns with the current focus.

Clarifying confusing information. Working through ambiguity step-by-step.

I'm thinking about ascii codes and the lack of a switch. The warning suggests adjusting double quotes. I'll focus on the lex function's handling at line 275.

I'm addressing the double backslash issue in string literals by modifying the regex or manual changes in the code to ensure single backslashes are correctly represented.

OK, let's swap out comments for whitespace.

Checking line 275, the code seems to use '\"'{data-start="41" end="47"} to escape a double quote within single quotes, aligning with typical syntax for embedding quotes in string literals.

I'm thinking through the code and deciding to remove one backslash in specific comparisons to simplify the logic. This change should help avoid escaping issues.

I'm analyzing the pattern "*src == '\\' && *(src+1) == '"'" and considering the need for all elements to be treated as raw strings for accurate file content transformation.

Thinking of simplifying with file text, not a regex range. Considering potential escape sequence issues.

I'm testing different approaches to reduce visibility. It seems the replace method wasn't effective this time.

I'm mapping out the meaning of \\\'{data-start="31" end="37"} in the output, questioning if an extra backslash was needed to escape a single quote.

I'm tackling a difficult issue with a representation.

I'm working through refining the backslash handling, ensuring there's just one in the char constant for reliable token generation.

I'm mapping out a single-loop method to handle string literals, managing escapes like backslashes and quotes, ensuring allocation fits processed content after escape handling.

I traced the string literal handling from the comment at line 270 to return token;{data-start="69" end="84"} at line 292, pinpointing the exact return segment for accurate code modification.

Howdy! I'm piecing together the correct escapes for '\\'{data-start="52" end="58"} and '\\''{data-start="63" end="70"} in the code, making sure these characters are properly represented. This involves checking escape sequences like \\{data-start="184" end="188"} for backslashes and \'{data-start="209" end="213"} for single quotes.

I'm checking that double quotes in the Python string are correctly escaped, with the line case '\"': buffer[...] = '\"';{data-start="90" end="122"} properly included in the final code.

I noticed that the code currently needs adjustment to properly handle escaping in string literals. This involves replacing old string literal handling with improved escape sequence decoding.

Pinpointing "token; }" as the string's conclusion, I replace the segment from strlit_comment_idx to prev_brace_idx+1.

Defining global and static variables to ensure correct parsing of declarations and declarators, then considering integration methods to tackle compile errors gradually.

Considering prototypes now, with plans to activate after parse() function. This timeline ensures thorough progress in our development strategy.

I'm thinking through the parseTranslationUnit{data-start="25" end="47"} function, which comes after the parse{data-start="80" end="87"} function. The goal is to either complete or remove the unfinished code.

I'm showing the parsing of external declarations, covering function definitions, prototypes, and other declarations. Integrating this step confirms the structure's accuracy.

Considering partial definitions or context could explain the redefinition messages.

I'm considering the impact on parseTranslationUnit and parseExternalDeclaration, which might lead to redefinitions or partial code. Removing existing definitions ensures a smoother integration.

I'm thinking through the removal of parseTranslationUnit{data-start="36" end="58"} and parseExternalDeclaration{data-start="63" end="89"} in code_mod{data-start="93" end="103"} to prevent conflicts with the new parsing functions.

I'm coding along and confirming the removal of lines from 524 to 541. This maintains synchronization with parsing functions, confirming code accuracy and alignment.

I'm piecing together the removal of code from existing_ptu_idx to closing_ptu_brace_idx+1. Now, I'm identifying the end of parseExternalDeclaration by finding 'return declSpecsNode'.

Noticing the conflict, I removed the appender from the existing parseExternalDecl, aligning it correctly with its ending index.

I'm investigating the new error at line 530, likely in parseExternalDecl{data-start="55" end="74"} or parseDeclSpecs{data-start="78" end="94"}. It suggests a constant initializer issue, possibly due to a global static initialization involving a function call.

I'm looking into leftover lines from the parseExternalDecl{data-start="41" end="60"} function. It seems comments or misalignment might cause this partial code to exist outside any function, leading to initializer errors.

I'm piecing together that the stray code likely comes from an incomplete parseExternalDecl in the file, making lines 526-539 the prime candidates for removal.

I'm noting a suspected brace mismatch in the code snippet. Manual removal may be necessary to resolve this issue, as an incomplete parseExternalDecl function might be the cause.

Mapping out the start and end of parseExternalDecl, noticing the external declaration function finishes with return NULL and brace on line 565, followed by '}' at 566.

Hmm, I'm thinking about the 'currentDeclSpecsIsTypedef undeclared' error. It seems we might have missed declaring it globally while cleaning up. Time to ensure it's right! Adding it near typedef_names could work.

I'm examining the potential for adding global static declarations, likely around the typedef_count section, to optimize the code's organization.

I'm revising the ASTNode union, adding type and initializer fields for var_decl{data-start="71" end="81"}. 고려하고 있네. This adjustment might slightly increase the union size, but it's manageable.

I'm adding a printAST{data-start="13" end="23"} function to show how the AST for the provided code looks, detailing various nodes and their types, followed by integrating the code with a main{data-start="163" end="169"} function for parsing and printing.

I'm working through a linker error, oddly enough, involving undefined references and incompleteness. The key file is '/usr/bin/ld: .parseExternalDeclaration'.

I'm pulling together a list of unimplemented functions like parseDeclSpecs and parseDeclarator, which need to be fully developed or at least stubbed out.

Including struct{data-start="10" end="18"} in the union's fields for AST_TERNARY_OP{data-start="45" end="61"} reveals the absence of necessary fields for ternary{data-start="106" end="115"}.

I'm adding the parseDeclaration function to handle local declspecs, ignoring function definitions. This involves parsing declarators and initializers, ensuring the logic aligns with local declaration rules.

I'm thinking of structuring the code into sections like AST Data Structures, Lexer Implementation, Parser Implementation, AST Traversal API, and the main function for clarity and readability.

Considering how to manage a large 74579 character code by potentially removing leftover commented logic and extraneous comments.

I'm sharing the final implementation, leaning towards sections over code_mod to avoid duplicates or removed parts.

Mapping out lexer definitions and AST structures, aiming to end before prototypes to avoid confusion.

I'm piecing together the code to highlight logical progression. Starting with AST structures and global definitions, then focusing on the core functions from the snippets, ensuring a clear and structured presentation.

I'm examining the newAstNode function, considering its outputs for data alignment and standardization. This ensures seamless processing and enhances data analysis.

A lexer implementation crafts functions for skipping, lexing, and managing tokens, forming the foundation for syntax analysis.

I'm charting identifiers, numbers, operators, punctuation, and strings to create a comprehensive lexing for C11 syntax support.

I'm focusing on typedefs, distinguishing them from variable names. This involves creating a global type name list and parsing declarations with clear structural guidelines.

I'm developing AST nodes for different C constructs, like program, function, variable, typedef, struct, union, enum, ensuring a structured representation of parsing results.

Designing a parsing mechanism for type specifiers like long{data-start="55" end="61"}, int{data-start="63" end="68"}, unsigned{data-start="70" end="80"}, and void{data-start="86" end="92"} to integrate them into a unified AST type node for clearer comprehension and representation.

Piecing together the correct function pointer and function return type parsing, ensuring proper alignment of parentheses and type specifiers. Progress is being made towards refining the parsing process.

OK, let's parse declarators, clean up type ASTs, and mix in tricky kinds like function pointers and arrays. It's a challenge, but refining type structure helps.

Searched for C function pointer parsing

Taking a closer look at the code specifications, ensuring it aligns with the expected output in C, and confirming the cover of all necessary syntactic constructs.

I'm thinking through whether to extract code_mod from the Python environment or directly read the final parser_temp.c{data-start="104" end="119"} file.

I'm figuring out how to manage a massive code block over 74k characters, ensuring it's within limits and maintains clarity with useful comments and a traversal API.

I'm detailing the basic code snippets involved in the explanation, focusing on the tokenizer, recursive descent parser, AST structure definitions, AST traversal, and the main function.

Research completed in 65m · 0 sources