[Bug c/98195] New: [11 Regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[Bug c/98195] New: [11 Regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[anbu1024.me at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98195

            Bug ID: 98195
           Summary: [11 Regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation
                    fault
           Product: gcc
           Version: 11.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: anbu1024.me at gmail dot com
  Target Milestone: ---

$ cat test.c 

static _Atomic long double x ; 

void foo ( void ) { 

        int a , b , c ; 

        x += foo ( x , a , b , c ) ; 

}

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

$ gcc-11 --version
gcc (GCC) 11.0.0 20201129 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

$ gcc-11 test.c 
test.c: In function ‘foo’:
test.c:8:14: error: too many arguments to function ‘foo’
    8 |         x += foo ( x , a , b , c ) ;
      |              ^~~
test.c:4:6: note: declared here
    4 | void foo ( void ) {
      |      ^~~
test.c:8:9: error: void value not ignored as it ought to be
    8 |         x += foo ( x , a , b , c ) ;
      |         ^
test.c:8:11: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
    8 |         x += foo ( x , a , b , c ) ;
      |           ^~
0xdeeb4f crash_signal
        ../../gcc-11-20201129/gcc/toplev.c:330
0xb5c982 gimplify_target_expr
        ../../gcc-11-20201129/gcc/gimplify.c:6757
0xb51e2e gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple**, gimple**, bool (*)(tree_node*),
int)
        ../../gcc-11-20201129/gcc/gimplify.c:14406
0xb55396 gimplify_stmt(tree_node**, gimple**)
        ../../gcc-11-20201129/gcc/gimplify.c:6862
0xb52f0b gimplify_statement_list
        ../../gcc-11-20201129/gcc/gimplify.c:1869
0xb52f0b gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple**, gimple**, bool (*)(tree_node*),
int)
        ../../gcc-11-20201129/gcc/gimplify.c:14454
0xb67dd7 gimplify_stmt(tree_node**, gimple**)
        ../../gcc-11-20201129/gcc/gimplify.c:6862
0xb67dd7 gimplify_compound_expr
        ../../gcc-11-20201129/gcc/gimplify.c:6062
0xb52141 gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple**, gimple**, bool (*)(tree_node*),
int)
        ../../gcc-11-20201129/gcc/gimplify.c:14000
0xb55396 gimplify_stmt(tree_node**, gimple**)
        ../../gcc-11-20201129/gcc/gimplify.c:6862
0xb52f0b gimplify_statement_list
        ../../gcc-11-20201129/gcc/gimplify.c:1869
0xb52f0b gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple**, gimple**, bool (*)(tree_node*),
int)
        ../../gcc-11-20201129/gcc/gimplify.c:14454
0xb55396 gimplify_stmt(tree_node**, gimple**)
        ../../gcc-11-20201129/gcc/gimplify.c:6862
0xb5605d gimplify_bind_expr
        ../../gcc-11-20201129/gcc/gimplify.c:1417
0xb52121 gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple**, gimple**, bool (*)(tree_node*),
int)
        ../../gcc-11-20201129/gcc/gimplify.c:14211
0xb6af39 gimplify_stmt(tree_node**, gimple**)
        ../../gcc-11-20201129/gcc/gimplify.c:6862
0xb6af39 gimplify_body(tree_node*, bool)
        ../../gcc-11-20201129/gcc/gimplify.c:15246
0xb6b35d gimplify_function_tree(tree_node*)
        ../../gcc-11-20201129/gcc/gimplify.c:15400
0x9af937 cgraph_node::analyze()
        ../../gcc-11-20201129/gcc/cgraphunit.c:670
0x9b2417 analyze_functions
        ../../gcc-11-20201129/gcc/cgraphunit.c:1235
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

$ gcc-10 --version
gcc (GCC) 10.2.1 20201128
Copyright (C) 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

$ gcc-10 test.c 
test.c: In function ‘foo’:
test.c:8:7: error: too many arguments to function ‘foo’
    8 |  x += foo ( x , a , b , c ) ;
      |       ^~~
test.c:4:6: note: declared here
    4 | void foo ( void ) {
      |      ^~~
test.c:8:2: error: void value not ignored as it ought to be
    8 |  x += foo ( x , a , b , c ) ;
      |  ^
test.c:8: confused by earlier errors, bailing out

[Bug c/98195] [11 Regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98195

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |error-recovery,
                   |                            |ice-on-invalid-code
   Target Milestone|---                         |11.0

[Bug c/98195] [11 Regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98195

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P3                          |P4

[Bug c/98195] [11/12 Regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98195

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|11.0                        |11.2

--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 11.1 has been released, retargeting bugs to GCC 11.2.

[Bug c/98195] [11/12 Regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98195

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|11.2                        |11.3

--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 11.2 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 11.3

[Bug c/98195] [11/12 Regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98195

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2021-08-17

--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Reduced testcase:
_Atomic int x ; 
void foo ( void ) { 
        x += foo ( ) ; 
}

[Bug c/98195] [11/12 Regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98195

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |cnsun at uwaterloo dot ca

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
*** Bug 100624 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c/98195] [11/12 Regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98195

--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
*** Bug 101108 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c/98195] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98195

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|11.3                        |---
            Summary|[11/12 Regression] internal |internal compiler error:
                   |compiler error:             |Segmentation fault
                   |Segmentation fault          |

--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Don't know why this was marked as a regression, it has been ICEing since
_Atomic was added back in GCC 4.9.0.

[Bug c/98195] ICE after `void value not ignored as it ought to be` error

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98195

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|internal compiler error:    |ICE after `void value not
                   |Segmentation fault          |ignored as it ought to be`
                   |                            |error
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
We have:
```
(gdb) p debug_tree(*expr_p)
 <target_expr 0x7ffff78005b0
    type <void_type 0x7ffff7822f18 void VOID
        align:8 warn_if_not_align:0 symtab:0 alias-set -1 canonical-type
0x7ffff7822f18
        pointer_to_this <pointer_type 0x7ffff782a000>>
    side-effects
    arg:0 <var_decl 0x7ffff7810f30 D.2776 type <void_type 0x7ffff7822f18 void>
        addressable used ignored read VOID t9.c:9:2
        align:8 warn_if_not_align:0>
    arg:1 <call_expr 0x7ffff79d78a0 type <void_type 0x7ffff7822f18 void>
        side-effects
        fn <addr_expr 0x7ffff79ad6a0 type <pointer_type 0x7ffff79b1888>
            constant arg:0 <function_decl 0x7ffff79b3600 foo>
            t9.c:9:7 start: t9.c:9:7 finish: t9.c:9:9>
        t9.c:9:7 start: t9.c:9:7 finish: t9.c:9:27>
    t9.c:9:4 start: t9.c:9:4 finish: t9.c:9:5>

```

Maybe we should have created a target_expr with an error_mark instead.

Let me look into this.