* [TUHS] Early Yacc revisited
2014-11-11 14:21 [TUHS] Early Yacc revisited Mark Longridge
@ 2014-11-11 18:36 ` scj
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: scj @ 2014-11-11 18:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
Yes, Yacc was originally written in B. There were two B compilers in use
at that time--one for the early versions of Unix, and another for the
GE/Honeywell mainframe that was the main Bell Labs computer at the time.
I kind of fell heir to the Honeywell B compiler when Dennis started
working full time on Unix, and I wanted to add some things to it (notably,
I wanted to add ^ as an exclusive OR operator). This was pretty painful
in the hand-crafted code in the original compiler, and got us thinking
about how to do better. Al Aho was familiar with Knuth's recent work on
LR parsing, and this motivated the birth of Yacc. Most of the early work
on Yacc was done on the Honeywell system, since Unix was still pretty
crude at the time. And the early Yacc has horribly slow. I remember one
grammar we ran on Unix with 40 rules that took 20 minutes, and brought
everybody else to a halt. Most of the work on Unix Yacc was trying to
make it much faster and to make it fit in the very small memories
available. I estimated at one point that Yacc had sped up by a factor of
10,000 in the first three years of its existence. Some of this speed up
was nontrivial--we had to prove theorems to convince ourselves that the
faster techniques would give the correct answers.
Since Yacc turned grammars into finite state machines, the original code
that Yacc generated consisted largely of tests of an input token followed
by a goto to the next state. Yes, B (and C) had a goto statement... But
there had been a lot written about how harmful gotos were, and Dennis had
taken this talk seriously. The compiler would let you use gotos, but at
most ten of them! That didn't allow for very complicated grammars... So
the code generator was rewritten to use switch statements...
In many ways, the Honeywell B compiler was better than the Unix one. B,
like its ancestor BCPL, was really designed for a word-addressed
architecture. There was an assumption that to move to the next element of
a vector of integers, you just added 1 to the address. The Honeywell was
a word addressed machine, but the PDP-11 was byte addressed, and B had to
do some very strange hacks to turn machine pointers into integers and back
to addresses... This need to have pointers to objects of different sizes
was one of the major motivations for moving from B to C -- type checking
was not much of a factor at all, and in fact encountered quite a bit of
resistance at first...
The short file names supported in the early days actually discouraged the
use of suffixes. The use of .h for header files came later, and the early
Yacc header files had no suffixes. Similarly, Yacc didn't care whether
its input was .y or not. The explosion of these extensions really came
later, with Make and longer file names.
> I've been thinking more about early yacc.
>
> It's not mentioned explicitly but I'm wondering if early Yacc's output
> (say in Unix version 3) was in B language since it was written in B
> language? It seems logical but I can't back up this assertion as
> there's no executable or source code that I can find. I assume there
> had to be some sort of B language compiler at some point but the
> hybrid v1/v2 unix I've looked at doesn't have it.
>
> And I'm still wondering what yacc was used for in the Unix v5 era.
> There's no *.y at all, e.g. no expr and no bc. I still have some hopes
> of modifying bc to run on Unix v5, or at least getting some simple
> yacc program to work under the v5 version.
>
> Mark
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread