In a bottom-up evaluation of a syntax directed definition, inherited attributes can

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?