Which of the following suffices to convert an arbitrary CFG to an LL(1) grammar?

Consider the translation scheme shown below

$$\eqalign{ & S \to TR \cr & R \to + T\left\{ {pr{\mathop{\rm int}} (' + ');} \right\}\,R\,|\,\varepsilon \cr & T \to num\,\left\{ {pr{\mathop{\rm int}} (num.val);} \right\} \cr} $$

Here num is a token that represents an integer and num.val represents the corresponding integer value. For an input string '9 + 5 + 2', this translation scheme will print

Which of the following is NOT an advantage of using shared, dynamically linked libraries as opposed to using statically linked libraries?

Consider the syntax directed definition shown below.

Here, gen is a function that generates the output code, and newtemp is a function that returns the name of a new temporary variable on every call. Assume that ti's are the temporary variable names generated by newtemp. For the statement 'X : = Y + Z', the 3-address code sequence generated by this definition is