IEC 61131-3 IL and ST compiler
The following compiler has been based on the
FINAL DRAFT - IEC 61131-3, 2nd Ed. (2001-12-10)
(c) 2003 Mario de Sousa
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
********* *********
********* *********
********* O V E R A L L A R C H I T E C T U R E *********
********* *********
********* *********
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
The compiler works in 4(+1) stages:
Stage 1 - Lexical analyser - implemented with flex (iec.flex)
Stage 2 - Syntax parser - implemented with bison (iec.y)
Stage 3 - Semantics analyser - not yet implemented
Stage 4 - Code generator - implemented in C++
Stage 4+1 - Binary code generator - gcc, javac, etc...
Data structures passed between stages, in global variables:
1->2 : tokens (int), and token values (char *)
2->1 : symbol tables (defined in symtable.hh)
2->3 : abstract syntax tree (tree of C++ classes, in absyntax.hh file)
3->4 : Same as 2->3
4->4+1 : file with program in c, java, etc...
The compiler works in several passes:
Pass 1: executes stages 1 and 2 simultaneously
Pass 2: executes stage 3
Pass 3: executes stage 4
Pass 4: executes stage 4+1
NOTE 1
======
Note that stage 2 passes data back to stage 1. This is only
possible because both stages are executed in the same pass.
NOTE 2
======
I (Mario) have a feeling that the abstract syntax may be
considerably simplified without any drawbacks to semantic checking
and code generation. I have nevertheless opted to keep as much
info as possible in the abstract syntax tree, in case it may become
necessary further on.
Once we start coding the next stages (semantic checking and code
generation) I will get a better understanding of what is required
of the abstract syntax tree. At that stage I will be better
positioned to make a more informed decision on how best to structure
the abstract syntax tree.
For now, we play conservative and keep as much info as possible.
NOTE 3
======
It would be nice to get this parser integrated into the gcc
group of compilers. We would then be able to compile our st/il
programs directly into executable binaries, for all the processor
architectures gcc currently supports.
The gcc compilers are divided into a frontend and backend. The
data structure between these two stages is called the syntax
tree. In essence, we would need to create a new frontend that
would parse the st/il program and build the syntax tree.
Unfortunately the gcc syntax tree is not very well documented,
and doing semantic checking on this tree would probably be a
nightmare.
We therefore chose to follow the same route as the gnat (ada 95)
and cobol compilers, i.e. generate our own abstract syntax tree,
do semantic checking on our tree, do whatever optimisation
we can at this level on our own tree, and only then build
the gcc syntax tree from our abstract syntax tree.
All this may still be integrated with the gcc backend to generate
a new gnu compiler for the st and il programming languages.
Since generating the gcc syntax tree will probably envolve some
trial and error effort due to the sparseness of documentation,
we chose to start off by coding a C++ code generator for
our stage 4. We may later implement a gcc syntax tree generator
as an alternative stage 4 process, and then integrate it with
the gcc toplevel.c file (command line parsing, etc...).
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
********* *********
********* *********
********* S T A G E 1 *********
********* *********
********* *********
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
Issue 1
=======
The syntax defines the common_character_representation as:
<any printable character except '$', '"' or "'"> | <escape sequences>
Flex includes the function print_char() that defines
all printable characters portably (i.e. whatever character
encoding is currently being used , ASCII, EBCDIC, etc...)
Unfortunately, we cannot generate the definition of
common_character_representation portably, since flex
does not allow definition of sets by subtracting
elements in one set from another set (Note how
common_character_representation could be defined by
subtracting '$' '"' and "'" from print_char() ).
This means we must build up the defintion of
common_character_representation using only set addition,
which leaves us with the only choice of defining the
characters non-portably...
In short, the definition we use for common_character_representation
only works for ASCII character encoding!
Issue 2
=======
We extend the IEC 61131-3 standard syntax to allow inclusion of
other files. The accepted syntax is:
(*#include "<filename>" *)
Note how this would be ignored by other standard complient compilers
as a simple comment!
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
********* *********
********* *********
********* S T A G E 2 *********
********* *********
********* *********
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
Overall Comments
================
Comment 1
---------
We have augmented the syntax the specification defines to include
restrictions defined in the semantics of the languages.
This is required because the syntax cannot be parsed by a LALR(1)
parser as it is presented in the specification. Many reduce/reduce
and shift/reduce conflicts arise. This is mainly because the parser
cannot discern how to reduce an identifier. Identifiers show up in
many places in the syntax, and it is not entirely possible to
figure out if the identifier is a variable_name, enumeration
value, function block name, etc... only from the context in
which it appears.
A more detailed example of why we need symbol tables are
the type definitions... In definition of new types
(section B 1.3.3) the parser needs to figure out the class of
the new type being defined (enumerated, structure, array, etc...).
This works well when the base classes are elementary types
(or structures, enumeration, arrays, etc. thereof). It becomes
confusing to the parser when the new_type is based on a previously
user defined type.
TYPE
new_type_1 : INT := 99;
new_type_2 : new_type_1 := 100;
END_TYPE
When parsing new_type_1, the parser can figure out that the
identifier new_type_1 is a simple_type_name, because it is
based on a elementary type without structure, arrays, etc...
While parsing new_type_2, it becomes confused how to reduce
the new_type_2 identifier, as it is based on the identifier
new_type_1, of which it does not know the class (remember, at this
stage new_type_1 is a simple identifier!).
We therefore need to keep track of the class of the user
defined types as they are declared, so that the lexical analyser
can tell the syntax parser what class the type belongs to. We
cannot use the abstract syntax tree itself to search for the
declaration of new_type_1 as we only get a handle to the root
of the tree at the end of the parsing.
We therefore maintain an independent and parallel table of symbols,
that is filled as we come across the type delcarations in the code.
Actually, we ended up also needing to store variable names in
the symbol table. Since variable names come and go out of scope
depending on what portion of code we are parsing, we sometimes
need to remove the variable names from the symbol table.
Since the ST and IL languages only have a single level of scope,
I (Mario) found it easier to simply use a second symbol table for
the variable names that is completely cleared when the parser
reaches the end of a function (function block or program).
What I mean when I say that these languages have a single level
of scope is that all variables used in a function (function block
or program) must be declared inside that function (function block
or program). Even global variables must be re-declared as EXTERN
before a function may access them! This means that it is easy
to simply load up the variable name symbol table when we start
parsing a function (function block or program), and to clear it
when we reach the end. Checking whether variables declared
as EXTERN really exist inside a RESOURCE or a CONFIGURATION
is left to stage 3 (semantic checking) where we can use the
abstract tree itself to search for the variables (NOTE: semantic
cheching at stage 3 has not yet been implemented, so we may yet
end up using a symbol table too at that stage!).
Due to the use of the symbol tables, and special identifier
tokens depending on the type of identifier it had previously
been declared in the code being parsed, the syntax was slightly
changed regarding the definition of variable names, derived
function names, etc... FROM for e.g.:
variable_name: identifier;
TO
variable_name: variable_name_token;
Flex first looks at the symbol tables when it finds an identifier,
and returns the correct token corresponding to the identifier
type in question. Only if the identifier is not currently stored
in any symbol table, does flex return a simple identifier_token.
This means that the declarations of variables, functions etc...
were changed FROM:
function_declaration: FUNCTION derived_function_name ...
TO
function_declaration: FUNCTION identifier ...
since the initial definition of derived_function_name had been
changed FROM
derived_function_name: identifier;
TO
derived_function_name: derived_function_name_token;
Comment 2
---------
Since the ST and IL languages share a lot of common syntax,
I have decided to write a single parser to handle both languages
simultaneously. This approach has the advantage that the user
may mix the language used in the same file, as long as each function
is written in a single lanuage.
This approach also assumes that all the IL language operators are
keywords, which means that it is not possible to define variables
using names such as "LD", "ST", etc...
Note that the spec does not consider these operators to be keywords,
so it means that they should be available for variable names! On the
other hand, all implementations of the ST and IL languages seems to
treat them as keywords, so there is not much harm in doing the same.
If it ever becomes necessary to allow variables with names of IL
operators, either the syntax will have to be augmented, or we can
brake up the parser in two: one for ST and another for IL.
/********************************/
/* B 1.3.3 - Derived data types */
/********************************/
Issue 1
=======
According to the spec, the valid construct
TYPE new_str_type : STRING := "hello!"; END_TYPE
has two possible routes to type_declaration...
Route 1:
type_declaration: single_element_type_declaration
single_element_type_declaration: simple_type_declaration
simple_type_declaration: identifier ':' simple_spec_init
simple_spec_init: simple_specification ASSIGN constant
(shift: identifier <- 'new_str_type')
simple_specification: elementary_type_name
elementary_type_name: STRING
(shift: elementary_type_name <- STRING)
(reduce: simple_specification <- elementary_type_name)
(shift: constant <- "hello!")
(reduce: simple_spec_init: simple_specification ASSIGN constant)
(reduce: ...)
Route 2:
type_declaration: string_type_declaration
string_type_declaration: identifier ':' elementary_string_type_name string_type_declaration_size string_type_declaration_init
(shift: identifier <- 'new_str_type')
elementary_string_type_name: STRING
(shift: elementary_string_type_name <- STRING)
(shift: string_type_declaration_size <- /* empty */)
string_type_declaration_init: ASSIGN character_string
(shift: character_string <- "hello!")
(reduce: string_type_declaration_init <- ASSIGN character_string)
(reduce: string_type_declaration <- identifier ':' elementary_string_type_name string_type_declaration_size string_type_declaration_init )
(reduce: type_declaration <- string_type_declaration)
At first glance it seems that removing route 1 would make
the most sense. Unfortunately the construct 'simple_spec_init'
shows up multiple times in other rules, so changing this construct
would mean changing all the rules in which it appears.
I (Mario) therefore chose to remove route 2 instead. This means
that the above declaration gets stored in a
simple_type_declaration_c, and not in a string_type_declaration_c
as would be expected!
/***********************/
/* B 1.5.1 - Functions */
/***********************/
Issue 1
=======
Due to reduce/reduce conflicts between identifiers
being reduced to either a variable or an enumerator value,
we were forced to keep a symbol table of the names
of all declared variables. Variables are no longer
created from simple identifier_token, but from
variable_name_token.
BUT, in functions the function name may be used as
a variable! In order to be able to parse this correctly,
the token parser (flex) must return a variable_name_token
when it comes across the function name, while parsing
the function itself.
We do this by inserting the function name into the variable
symbol table, and having flex return a variable_name_token
whenever it comes across it.
When we finish parsing the function the variable name
symbol table is cleared of all entries, and the function
name is inserted into the library element symbol table. This
means that from then onwards flex will return a
derived_function_name_token whenever it comes across the
function name.
In order to insert the function name into the variable_name
symbol table BEFORE the function body gets parsed, we
need the parser to reduce a construct that contains the
the function name. That is why we created the extra
construct 'function_name_declaration', i.e. to force
the parser to reduce it, before parsing the function body,
and therefore get an oportunity to insert the function name
into the variable name symbol table!
/********************************/
/* B 3.2.4 Iteration Statements */
/********************************/
Issue 1
=======
For the 'FOR' iteration loop
FOR control_variable ASSIGN expression TO expression BY expression DO statement_list END_FOR
The spec declares the control variable in the syntax as
control_variable: identifier;
but then defines the semantics of control_variable (Section 3.3.2.4)
as being of an integer type (e.g., SINT, INT, or DINT).
Obviously this presuposes that the control_variable must have been
declared in some 'VAR .. VAR_END' construct, so I (Mario) changed
the syntax to read
control_variable: variable_name;
**************************************************************************
(c) 2003 Mario de Sousa