What does syntax directed translation mean? - syntax

Question

Can anyone, in simple terms, explain what does "Syntax Directed Translation" mean? I started to read the topic from Dragon Book but couldn't understand. The Wiki article didn't help either.

Answer 1

In simplest terms, 'Syntax Directed Translation' means driving the entire compilation (translation) process with the syntax recognizer (the parser).
Conceptually, the process of compiling a program (translating it from source code to machine code) starts with a parser that produces a parse tree, and then transforms that parse tree through a sequence of tree or graph transformations, each of which is largely independent, resulting in a final simplified tree or graph that is traversed to produce machine code.
This view, while nice in theory, has a drawback that if you try to implement it directly, enough memory to hold at least two copies of the entire tree or graph is needed. Back when the Dragon Book was written (and when a lot of this theory was hashed out), computer memories were measured in kilobytes, and 64K was a lot. So compiling large programs could be tricky.
With Syntax Directed Translation, you organize all of the graph transformations around the order in which the parser recognizes the parse tree. Instead of producing a complete parse tree, your parser builds little bits of it, and then feeds those bits to the subsequent passes of the compiler, ultimately producing a small piece of machine code, before continuing the parsing process to build the next piece of parse tree. Since only small amounts of the parse tree (or the subsequent graphs) exist at any time, much less memory is required. Since the syntax recognizer is the master sequencer controlling all of this (deciding the order in which things happen), this is called Syntax Directed Translation.
Since this is such an effective way of keeping down memory use, people even redesigned languages to make it easier to do -- the ideal being to have a "Single Pass" compiler that could in fact do the entire process from parsing to machine code generation in a single pass.
Nowadays, memory is not at such a premium, so there's less pressure to force everything into a single pass. Instead you generally use Syntax Direct Translation just for the front end, parsing the syntax, doing typechecking and other semantic checks, and a few simple transformations all from the parser and producing some internal form (three address code, trees, or dags of some kind) and then having separate optimization and back end passes that are independent (and so not syntax directed). Even in this case you might claim that these later passes are at least partly syntax directed, as the compiler may be organized to operate on large pieces of the input (such as entire functions or modules), pushing through all the passes before continuing with the next piece of input.
Tools like yacc are designed around the idea of Syntax Directed Translation -- the tool produces a syntax recognizer that directly runs fragments of code ('actions' in the tool parlance) as productions (fragments of the parse tree) are recognized, without ever creating an actual 'tree'. These actions can directly invoke what are logically later passes in the compiler, and then return to continue parsing. The imperative main loop that drives all of this is the parser's token reading state machine.

Answer 2

Actually No. Historically before the Dragon Book there were syntax directed compilers. Attending ACM SEGPlan meeting in the late 1960's I learned of several types of directed translation. Tree directed and graph directed translation were also discussed. I think these got muddled together in the Dragon Book though I have never owned the Dragon Book. My favorite book was Programming Systems and Languages by Saul Rosen. It is a collection of papers on compilers, operating systems and computer systems. I'll try to explain the early syntax directed compiler parser programming languages. The later ones producing trees were combined with tree directed code generating languages.
Early syntax directed compilers, translated source directly to stack machine code. The Borrows B5000 ALGOL compiler is an example.
A*(B+C) -> A,B,C,ADD,MPY
Schorre's META II domain specific parser programming language, compiler compiler, developed in the 1960s is an example of a syntax directed compiler. You can find the original META II paper in the ACM archive. META II avoids left recursion using $ postfix zero or more sequence operator and ( ) grouping.
EXPR = TERM $('+' TERM .OUT 'ADD'|'-' TERM .OUT 'SUB');
Later Schorre based metalanguage compilers translated to trees using stack based tree transformation operators :<node name> and !<number>.
EXPR = TERM $(('+':ADD|'-':SUB) TERM!2);
Except for TREEMETA that used [<number>] instead of !<number>. The above EXPR formula is basically the same as the META II EXPR except we have factored operators + and - recognition creating corresponding nodes and pushing the node onto the node stack. Then on recognizing the right TERM the tree constructor !2 creates a tree popping the top 2 parse stack <TERM>s and top node from the node stack to form a tree:
ADD or SUB
/ \ / \
TERM TERM TERM TERM
Tokens were recognized by supplied recognizers .ID .NUMBER and .STRING. Later replaced by token ".." and character class ":" formula in CWIC:
id .. let $(leter|dgt|+'_');
Tree directed compiler languages were combined with the syntax directed compilers to generate code. The CWIC compiler compiler developed at Systems Development Corporation included a LISP 2 based tree directed generator language. A short paper in CWIC can be found in the ACM archives.
In the parser programming languages you are programming a type of recursive decent parser. When you get to CWIC all the problems that today are attributed to recursive decent parsers were eliminated. There is no left recursion problem as the $ zero or more construct and programed tree construction eliminated the need of left recursion. You control the tree construction. A loop construct is used to produces a left handed tree and tail recursion a right handed tree. Though parsing formulas may generate no tree at all:
program = $declarations;
In the above the $ zero or more loop operator preceding declarations specifies that declarations is to be repeatably called as long as it returns success. The input source code being compiled is made up of any positive number of declarations. The declarations formula would then define the types of declarations. You might need external linkages declarations, data declarations, function or procedure code declarations.
declarations = linkage_decl | data_decl | code_decl;
The types of declarations each being a separate formula. The syntax language controls when semantic processing and code generation occurs. The program and declarations formulas above do not produce trees. They are simply controlling when and what language structure are parsed. These are neither LL oe LR parser sears. The provide unlimited (limited only by available memory) programed backtracking. They provide programed look ahead and peak ahead tests.
As a last example the following example including token and character class formula illustrates producing both left and right handed trees. Specifically exponentiation using tail recursion.
assign = id '=' expr ';' :ASSIGN!2 arith_gen[*1];
expr = term $(('+':ADD | '-':SUB) term !2);
term = factor $(('*':MPY | '//' :REM | '/':DIV) factor!2);
factor = ( id ('(' +[ arg $(',' arg ]+ ')' :CALL!2 | .EMPTY)
| number
| '(' expr ')'
) ('^' factor:EXP!2 | .EMPTY);
bin: '0'|'1';
oct: bin|'2'|'3'|'4'|'5'|'6'|'7';
dgt: oct|'8'|'9';
hex: dgt|'A'|'B'|'C'|'D'|'E'|'F'|'a'|'b'|'c'|'d'|'e'|'f';
upr: 'A'|'B'|'C'|'D'|'E'|'F'|'G'|'H'|'I'|'J'|'K'|'L'|'M'|
'N'|'O'|'P'|'Q'|'R'|'S'|'T'|'U'|'V'|'W'|'X'|'Y'|'Z';
lwr: 'a'|'b'|'c'|'d'|'e'|'f'|'g'|'h'|'i'|'j'|'k'|'l'|'m'|
'n'|'o'|'p'|'q'|'r'|'s'|'t'|'u'|'v'|'w'|'x'|'y'|'z';
alpha: upr|lwr;
alphanum: alpha|dgt;
number .. dgt $dgt MAKENUM[];
id .. alpha $(alphanum|+'_');