[Bug preprocessor/95183] New: [11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in _cpp_lex_direct)

[Bug preprocessor/95183] New: [11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in _cpp_lex_direct)

[asolokha at gmx dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95183

            Bug ID: 95183
           Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in
                    _cpp_lex_direct)
           Product: gcc
           Version: 11.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: preprocessor
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: asolokha at gmx dot com
  Target Milestone: ---

gcc-11.0.0-alpha20200517 snapshot (g:2b9a271b2d0ba340234a138b7f8289bd7dca2fc5)
ICEs when compiling gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/cpp/trad/funlike-3.c:

% gcc-11.0.0 -c gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/cpp/trad/funlike-3.c
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/cpp/trad/funlike-3.c:8:8: error: unterminated argument
list invoking macro "f"
    8 | #if 2 f(/* { dg-error "-:unterminated" "unterminated macro in
directive" } */
      |        ^
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/cpp/trad/funlike-3.c:8:7: error: missing binary operator
before token "f"
    8 | #if 2 f(/* { dg-error "-:unterminated" "unterminated macro in
directive" } */
      |       ^
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/cpp/trad/funlike-3.c:12: error: unterminated argument list
invoking macro "f"
   12 | f( /* { dg-error "-:unterminated" "unterminated macro" } */
      | 
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/cpp/trad/funlike-3.c:12:1: internal compiler error:
Segmentation fault
   12 | f( /* { dg-error "-:unterminated" "unterminated macro" } */
      | ^
0xd9b92f crash_signal
       
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-11.0.0_alpha20200517/work/gcc-11-20200517/gcc/toplev.c:328
0x18578d3 _cpp_lex_direct
       
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-11.0.0_alpha20200517/work/gcc-11-20200517/libcpp/lex.c:2733
0x18592e8 _cpp_lex_token
       
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-11.0.0_alpha20200517/work/gcc-11-20200517/libcpp/lex.c:2611
0x1860877 cpp_get_token_1
       
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-11.0.0_alpha20200517/work/gcc-11-20200517/libcpp/macro.c:2808
0x8784d0 c_lex_with_flags(tree_node**, unsigned int*, unsigned char*, int)
       
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-11.0.0_alpha20200517/work/gcc-11-20200517/gcc/c-family/c-lex.c:458
0x7f7a3a c_lex_one_token
       
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-11.0.0_alpha20200517/work/gcc-11-20200517/gcc/c/c-parser.c:270
0x7f8ac0 c_parser_peek_2nd_token(c_parser*)
       
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-11.0.0_alpha20200517/work/gcc-11-20200517/gcc/c/c-parser.c:491
0x7f8ac0 c_parser_peek_2nd_token(c_parser*)
       
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-11.0.0_alpha20200517/work/gcc-11-20200517/gcc/c/c-parser.c:484
0x820b9c c_parser_declaration_or_fndef
       
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-11.0.0_alpha20200517/work/gcc-11-20200517/gcc/c/c-parser.c:1893
0x82a893 c_parser_external_declaration
       
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-11.0.0_alpha20200517/work/gcc-11-20200517/gcc/c/c-parser.c:1745
0x82b3a9 c_parser_translation_unit
       
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-11.0.0_alpha20200517/work/gcc-11-20200517/gcc/c/c-parser.c:1618
0x82b3a9 c_parse_file()
       
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-11.0.0_alpha20200517/work/gcc-11-20200517/gcc/c/c-parser.c:21746
0x8830fb c_common_parse_file()
       
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-11.0.0_alpha20200517/work/gcc-11-20200517/gcc/c-family/c-opts.c:1190

It's likely caused by g:2a0225e47868fbfceaecaa5e2de96c1c5a2251ea.

[Bug preprocessor/95183] [11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in _cpp_lex_direct)

[marxin at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95183

Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
                   |                            |nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2020-05-18
      Known to fail|                            |11.0
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
      Known to work|                            |10.0

--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed, it really started with Nathan's commit.

[Bug preprocessor/95183] [11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in _cpp_lex_direct)

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95183

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |11.0

[Bug preprocessor/95183] [11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in _cpp_lex_direct)

[nathan at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95183

Nathan Sidwell <nathan at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |nathan at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug preprocessor/95183] [11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in _cpp_lex_direct)

[nathan at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95183

--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell <nathan at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This is a bug, but you're running a --traditional C preprocessor test through
the c++ compiler, right?  (A regular test run doesn't fail this test for me at
least)

[Bug preprocessor/95183] [11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in _cpp_lex_direct)

[asolokha at gmx dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95183

--- Comment #3 from Arseny Solokha <asolokha at gmx dot com> ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #2)
> This is a bug, but you're running a --traditional C preprocessor test
> through the c++ compiler, right?

Through the C compiler, but otherwise yes. I've posted the compiler invocation
in comment 0 verbatim.


> (A regular test run doesn't fail this test
> for me at least)

Yep, because trad.exp adds -traditional-cpp, as intended. But I don't run the
testsuite, but rather use its test cases as part of my larger test corpus,
compiling every individual case in that corpus with randomly chosen compiler
options. IOW, my testing ignores DejaGNU directives in gcc testsuite (which
means it also often ignores common sense when choosing compiler options, as a
consequence).

I can further describe my setup if you are interested, but it's off-topic in
this PR.

[Bug preprocessor/95183] [11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in _cpp_lex_direct)

[nathan at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95183

Nathan Sidwell <nathan at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED

--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell <nathan at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed a641d6d3e63

[Bug preprocessor/95183] [11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in _cpp_lex_direct)

[nathan at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95183

--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell <nathan at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
patch got attached to p95182, because reasons