Chapter 3

Describing Syntax
and Semantics
Chapter 3 Topics

• Introduction
• The General Problem of Describing
Syntax
• Formal Methods of Describing Syntax
• Attribute Grammars
• Describing the Meanings of Programs:
Dynamic Semantics

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-2

Introduction

• Syntax: the form or structure of the

expressions, statements, and program
units
• Semantics: the meaning of the
expressions, statements, and program
units
• Syntax and semantics provide a language’s
definition
– Users of a language definition
• Other language designers
• Implementers
• Programmers (the users of the language)
Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-3
The General Problem of Describing
Syntax: Terminology

• A sentence is a string of characters over

some alphabet

• A language is a set of sentences

• A lexeme is the lowest level syntactic unit

of a language (e.g., *, sum, begin)

• A token is a category of lexemes (e.g.,

identifier)
Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-4
Formal Definition of Languages

• Recognizers
– A recognition device reads input strings over the
alphabet of the language and decides whether the input
strings belong to the language
– Example: syntax analysis part of a compiler
- Detailed discussion of syntax analysis appears in
Chapter 4

• Generators
– A device that generates sentences of a language
– One can determine if the syntax of a particular
sentence is syntactically correct by comparing it to the
structure of the generator

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-5

BNF and Context-Free Grammars

• Context-Free Grammars
– Developed by Noam Chomsky in the mid-1950s
– Language generators, meant to describe the
syntax of natural languages
– Define a class of languages called context-free
languages

• Backus-Naur Form (1959)

– Invented by John Backus to describe the syntax
of Algol 58
– BNF is equivalent to context-free grammars

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-6

BNF Fundamentals

• In BNF, abstractions are used to represent

classes of syntactic structures--they act like
syntactic variables (also called nonterminal
symbols, or just terminals)

• Terminals are lexemes or tokens

• A rule has a left-hand side (LHS), which is a

nonterminal, and a right-hand side (RHS), which
is a string of terminals and/or nonterminals

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-7

BNF Fundamentals (continued)

• Nonterminals are often enclosed in angle

brackets

– Examples of BNF rules:

<ident_list> → identifier | identifier, <ident_list>
<if_stmt> → if <logic_expr> then <stmt>

• Grammar: a finite non-empty set of rules

• A start symbol is a special element of the

nonterminals of a grammar

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-8

BNF Rules

• An abstraction (or nonterminal symbol)

can have more than one RHS
<stmt>  <single_stmt>
| begin <stmt_list> end

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-9

Describing Lists

• Syntactic lists are described using

recursion
<ident_list>  ident
| ident, <ident_list>

• A derivation is a repeated application of

rules, starting with the start symbol and
ending with a sentence (all terminal
symbols)

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-10

An Example Grammar

<program>  <stmts>
<stmts>  <stmt> | <stmt> ; <stmts>
<stmt>  <var> = <expr>
<var>  a | b | c | d
<expr>  <term> + <term> | <term> - <term>
<term>  <var> | const

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-11

An Example Derivation

<program> => <stmts> => <stmt>

=> <var> = <expr>
=> a = <expr>
=> a = <term> + <term>
=> a = <var> + <term>
=> a = b + <term>
=> a = b + const

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-12

Derivations

• Every string of symbols in a derivation is a

sentential form
• A sentence is a sentential form that has
only terminal symbols
• A leftmost derivation is one in which the
leftmost nonterminal in each sentential
form is the one that is expanded
• A derivation may be neither leftmost nor
rightmost

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-13

Parse Tree

• A hierarchical representation of a
derivation <program>

<stmts>

<stmt>

<var> = <expr>

a <term> + <term>

<var> const

b
Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-14
Ambiguity in Grammars

• A grammar is ambiguous if and only if it

generates a sentential form that has
two or more distinct parse trees

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-15

An Ambiguous Expression Grammar

<expr>  <expr> <op> <expr> | const

<op>  / | -

<expr> <expr>

<expr> <op> <expr> <expr> <op> <expr>

<expr> <op> <expr> <expr> <op> <expr>

const - const / const const - const / const

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-16

An Unambiguous Expression Grammar

• If we use the parse tree to indicate

precedence levels of the operators, we
cannot have ambiguity
<expr>  <expr> - <term> | <term>
<term>  <term> / const| const

<expr>

<expr> - <term>

<term> <term> / const

const const
Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-17
Associativity of Operators

• Operator associativity can also be indicated by a

grammar

<expr> -> <expr> + <expr> | const (ambiguous)

<expr> -> <expr> + const | const (unambiguous)

<expr>
<expr>

<expr> + const

<expr> + const

const
Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-18
Extended BNF

• Optional parts are placed in brackets [ ]

<proc_call> -> ident [(<expr_list>)]
• Alternative parts of RHSs are placed
inside parentheses and separated via
vertical bars
<term> → <term> (+|-) const
• Repetitions (0 or more) are placed
inside braces { }
<ident> → letter {letter|digit}

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-19

BNF and EBNF
• BNF
<expr>  <expr> + <term>
| <expr> - <term>
| <term>
<term>  <term> * <factor>
| <term> / <factor>
| <factor>
• EBNF
<expr>  <term> {(+ | -) <term>}
<term>  <factor> {(* | /) <factor>}

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-20

Recent Variations in EBNF

• Alternative RHSs are put on separate lines

• Use of a colon instead of =>
• Use of opt for optional parts
• Use of oneof for choices

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-21

Static Semantics

• Nothing to do with meaning

• Context-free grammars (CFGs) cannot
describe all of the syntax of programming
languages
• Categories of constructs that are trouble:
- Context-free, but cumbersome (e.g.,
types of operands in expressions)
- Non-context-free (e.g., variables must
be declared before they are used)
Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-22
Attribute Grammars

• Attribute grammars (AGs) have

additions to CFGs to carry some
semantic info on parse tree nodes

• Primary value of AGs:

– Static semantics specification
– Compiler design (static semantics checking)

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-23

Attribute Grammars : Definition

• Def: An attribute grammar is a context-

free grammar G = (S, N, T, P) with the
following additions:
– For each grammar symbol x there is a set A(x)
of attribute values
– Each rule has a set of functions that define
certain attributes of the nonterminals in the
rule
– Each rule has a (possibly empty) set of
predicates to check for attribute consistency

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-24

Attribute Grammars: Definition

• Let X0  X1 ... Xn be a rule

• Functions of the form S(X0) = f(A(X1), ... ,
A(Xn)) define synthesized attributes
• Functions of the form I(Xj) = f(A(X0), ... ,
A(Xn)), for i <= j <= n, define inherited
attributes
• Initially, there are intrinsic attributes on
the leaves

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-25

Attribute Grammars: An Example

• Syntax
<assign> -> <var> = <expr>
<expr> -> <var> + <var> | <var>
<var> A | B | C
• actual_type: synthesized for <var>
and <expr>
• expected_type: inherited for <expr>

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-26

Attribute Grammar (continued)

• Syntax rule: <expr>  <var>[1] + <var>[2]

Semantic rules:
<expr>.actual_type  <var>[1].actual_type
Predicate:
<var>[1].actual_type == <var>[2].actual_type
<expr>.expected_type == <expr>.actual_type

• Syntax rule: <var>  id

Semantic rule:
<var>.actual_type  lookup (<var>.string)

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-27

Attribute Grammars (continued)

• How are attribute values computed?

– If all attributes were inherited, the tree could
be decorated in top-down order.
– If all attributes were synthesized, the tree
could be decorated in bottom-up order.
– In many cases, both kinds of attributes are
used, and it is some combination of top-down
and bottom-up that must be used.

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-28

Attribute Grammars (continued)

<expr>.expected_type  inherited from parent

<var>[1].actual_type  lookup (A)

<var>[2].actual_type  lookup (B)
<var>[1].actual_type =? <var>[2].actual_type

<expr>.actual_type  <var>[1].actual_type
<expr>.actual_type =? <expr>.expected_type

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-29

Semantics

• There is no single widely acceptable

notation or formalism for describing
semantics
• Several needs for a methodology and
notation for semantics:
– Programmers need to know what statements mean
– Compiler writers must know exactly what language
constructs do
– Correctness proofs would be possible
– Compiler generators would be possible
– Designers could detect ambiguities and inconsistencies

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-30

Operational Semantics

• Operational Semantics
– Describe the meaning of a program by
executing its statements on a machine, either
simulated or actual. The change in the state
of the machine (memory, registers, etc.)
defines the meaning of the statement
• To use operational semantics for a high-
level language, a virtual machine is
needed

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-31

Operational Semantics

• A hardware pure interpreter would be too

expensive
• A software pure interpreter also has
problems
– The detailed characteristics of the particular
computer would make actions difficult to
understand
– Such a semantic definition would be machine-
dependent

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-32

Operational Semantics
(continued)
• A better alternative: A complete computer
simulation
• The process:
– Build a translator (translates source code to the
machine code of an idealized computer)
– Build a simulator for the idealized computer
• Evaluation of operational semantics:
– Good if used informally (language manuals,
etc.)
– Extremely complex if used formally (e.g., VDL),
it was used for describing semantics of PL/I.
Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-33
Operational Semantics
(continued)
• Uses of operational semantics:
- Language manuals and textbooks
- Teaching programming languages

• Two different levels of uses of operational

semantics:
- Natural operational semantics
- Structural operational semantics

• Evaluation
- Good if used informally (language
manuals, etc.)
- Extremely complex if used formally (e.g.,VDL)
Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-34
Denotational Semantics

• Based on recursive function theory

• The most abstract semantics description
method
• Originally developed by Scott and
Strachey (1970)

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-35

Denotational Semantics - continued

• The process of building a denotational

specification for a language:
- Define a mathematical object for each language
entity
– Define a function that maps instances of the
language entities onto instances of the
corresponding mathematical objects
• The meaning of language constructs are
defined by only the values of the program's
variables

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-36

Denotational Semantics: program
state
• The state of a program is the values of all
its current variables
s = {<i1, v1>, <i2, v2>, …, <in, vn>}

• Let VARMAP be a function that, when

given a variable name and a state, returns
the current value of the variable
VARMAP(ij, s) = vj

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-37

Decimal Numbers

<dec_num>  '0' | '1' | '2' | '3' | '4' | '5' |

'6' | '7' | '8' | '9' |
<dec_num> ('0' | '1' | '2' | '3' |
'4' | '5' | '6' | '7' |
'8' | '9')

Mdec('0') = 0, Mdec ('1') = 1, …, Mdec ('9') = 9

Mdec (<dec_num> '0') = 10 * Mdec (<dec_num>)
Mdec (<dec_num> '1’) = 10 * Mdec (<dec_num>) + 1
…
Mdec (<dec_num> '9') = 10 * Mdec (<dec_num>) + 9

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-38

Expressions

• Map expressions onto Z  {error}

• We assume expressions are decimal
numbers, variables, or binary expressions
having one arithmetic operator and two
operands, each of which can be an
expression

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-39

Expressions

Me(<expr>, s) =
case <expr> of
<dec_num> => Mdec(<dec_num>, s)
<var> =>
if VARMAP(<var>, s) == undef
then error
else VARMAP(<var>, s)
<binary_expr> =>
if (Me(<binary_expr>.<left_expr>, s) == undef
OR Me(<binary_expr>.<right_expr>, s) =
undef)
then error
else
if (<binary_expr>.<operator> == '+' then
Me(<binary_expr>.<left_expr>, s) +
Me(<binary_expr>.<right_expr>, s)
else Me(<binary_expr>.<left_expr>, s) *
Me(<binary_expr>.<right_expr>, s)
...

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-40

Assignment Statements

• Maps state sets to state sets U {error}

Ma(x := E, s) =
if Me(E, s) == error
then error
else s’ =
{<i1,v1’>,<i2,v2’>,...,<in,vn’>},
where for j = 1, 2, ..., n,
if ij == x
then vj’ = Me(E, s)
else vj’ = VARMAP(ij, s)

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-41

Logical Pretest Loops

• Maps state sets to state sets U {error}

Ml(while B do L, s) =
if Mb(B, s) == undef
then error
else if Mb(B, s) == false
then s
else if Msl(L, s) == error
then error
else Ml(while B do L, Msl(L, s))

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-42

Loop Meaning

• The meaning of the loop is the value of the

program variables after the statements in the loop
have been executed the prescribed number of
times, assuming there have been no errors
• In essence, the loop has been converted from
iteration to recursion, where the recursive control
is mathematically defined by other recursive state
mapping functions

- Recursion, when compared to iteration, is easier

to describe with mathematical rigor

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-43

Evaluation of Denotational Semantics

• Can be used to prove the correctness of

programs
• Provides a rigorous way to think about
programs
• Can be an aid to language design
• Has been used in compiler generation
systems
• Because of its complexity, it are of little
use to language users

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-44

Axiomatic Semantics

• Based on formal logic (predicate calculus)

• Original purpose: formal program
verification
• Axioms or inference rules are defined for
each statement type in the language (to
allow transformations of logic expressions
into more formal logic expressions)
• The logic expressions are called assertions

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-45

Axiomatic Semantics (continued)
• An assertion before a statement (a
precondition) states the relationships and
constraints among variables that are true
at that point in execution
• An assertion following a statement is a
postcondition
• A weakest precondition is the least
restrictive precondition that will guarantee
the postcondition

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-46

Axiomatic Semantics Form

• Pre-, post form: {P} statement {Q}

• An example
– a = b + 1 {a > 1}
– One possible precondition: {b > 10}
– Weakest precondition: {b > 0}

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-47

 Program Proof Process

• The postcondition for the entire program

is the desired result
– Work back through the program to the first
statement. If the precondition on the first
statement is the same as the program
specification, the program is correct.

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-48

Axiomatic Semantics: Assignment

• An axiom for assignment statements

(x = E): {Qx->E} x = E {Q}

• The Rule of Consequence:

{P} S {Q}, P'  P, Q  Q'
{P' } S {Q'}

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-49

Axiomatic Semantics: Sequences

• An inference rule for sequences of the form

S1; S2

{P1} S1 {P2}
{P2} S2 {P3}

{P1} S1{P2}, {P2} S2 {P3}

{P1} S1; S2 {P3}

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-50

Axiomatic Semantics: Selection

• An inference rules for selection

- if B then S1 else S2

{B and P} S1 {Q}, {(not B) and P} S2

{Q}
{P} if B then S1 else S2 {Q}

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-51

Axiomatic Semantics: Loops
• An inference rule for logical pretest loops

{P} while B do S end {Q}

(I and B) S {I}
{I} while B do S {I and (not B)}

where I is the loop invariant (the inductive

hypothesis)

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-52

Axiomatic Semantics: Axioms
• Characteristics of the loop invariant: I must
meet the following conditions:
– P => I -- the loop invariant must be true initially
– {I} B {I} -- evaluation of the Boolean must not change the
validity of I
– {I and B} S {I} -- I is not changed by executing the body of the
loop
– (I and (not B)) => Q -- if I is true and B is false, Q is implied
– The loop terminates -- can be difficult to prove

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-53

Loop Invariant

• The loop invariant I is a weakened version

of the loop postcondition, and it is also a
precondition.
• I must be weak enough to be satisfied
prior to the beginning of the loop, but
when combined with the loop exit
condition, it must be strong enough to
force the truth of the postcondition

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-54

Evaluation of Axiomatic Semantics

• Developing axioms or inference rules for

all of the statements in a language is
difficult
• It is a good tool for correctness proofs,
and an excellent framework for reasoning
about programs, but it is not as useful for
language users and compiler writers
• Its usefulness in describing the meaning
of a programming language is limited for
language users or compiler writers
Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-55
Denotation Semantics vs Operational
Semantics
• In operational semantics, the state
changes are defined by coded algorithms
• In denotational semantics, the state
changes are defined by rigorous
mathematical functions

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-56

Summary

• BNF and context-free grammars are

equivalent meta-languages
– Well-suited for describing the syntax of
programming languages
• An attribute grammar is a descriptive
formalism that can describe both the
syntax and the semantics of a language
• Three primary methods of semantics
description
– Operation, axiomatic, denotational

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-57