[Nasm-bugs] [ nasm-Bugs-3200749 ] Strange behaviour with %define

SourceForge Headquarters 225 Broadway Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 454-5900

Bugs item #3200749, was opened at 2011-03-06 00:12
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by cyrillos
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=106208&aid=3200749&group_id=6208

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: Preprocessor Bugs
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: Strange behaviour with %define

Initial Comment:
I tried compiling a code like this (nasm 2.09.04):

%define IFNDEF %ifndef
%define ENDIF %endif

IFNDEF foo
;bar
ENDIF

but I get an error:

$ nasm test.mac
test.mac:4: error: label or instruction expected at start of line
test.mac:6: error: label or instruction expected at start of line

when I invoke nasm -e it prints:

$ nasm -e test.mac
%line 3+1 test.mac

%ifndef foo

%endif

what is basicaly what I want and what in this form compiles ok. Driven by curiosity I tried invoking nasm -a on my source file and with that it crashed:

$ nasm -a test.mac 
test.mac:1: error: label or instruction expected at start of line
test.mac:2: error: label or instruction expected at start of line
test.mac:4: error: parser: instruction expected
*** glibc detected *** nasm: double free or corruption (!prev): 0x081147b8 ***
======= Backtrace: =========
/lib/libc.so.6(+0x6b861)[0xb7663861]
/lib/libc.so.6(+0x6d0c8)[0xb76650c8]
/lib/libc.so.6(cfree+0x6d)[0xb76681ad]
/lib/libc.so.6(fclose+0x152)[0xb76538c2]
nasm[0x804b175]
nasm[0x804c6f7]
/lib/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xe6)[0xb760ebb6]
nasm[0x8049131]
======= Memory map: ========
08048000-080cf000 r-xp 00000000 08:17 29454250   /usr/bin/nasm
080cf000-080d0000 r--p 00086000 08:17 29454250   /usr/bin/nasm
080d0000-080d1000 rw-p 00087000 08:17 29454250   /usr/bin/nasm
080d1000-08120000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0          [heap]
b7400000-b7421000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 
b7421000-b7500000 ---p 00000000 00:00 0 
b759a000-b75b4000 r-xp 00000000 08:17 20983347   /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.4.3/libgcc_s.so.1
b75b4000-b75b5000 r--p 00019000 08:17 20983347   /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.4.3/libgcc_s.so.1
b75b5000-b75b6000 rw-p 0001a000 08:17 20983347   /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.4.3/libgcc_s.so.1
b75b6000-b75f8000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 
b75f8000-b7738000 r-xp 00000000 08:15 866952     /lib/libc-2.11.2.so
b7738000-b773a000 r--p 0013f000 08:15 866952     /lib/libc-2.11.2.so
b773a000-b773b000 rw-p 00141000 08:15 866952     /lib/libc-2.11.2.so
b773b000-b773e000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 
b7767000-b7768000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 
b7768000-b7769000 r-xp 00000000 00:00 0          [vdso]
b7769000-b7785000 r-xp 00000000 08:15 867489     /lib/ld-2.11.2.so
b7785000-b7786000 r--p 0001b000 08:15 867489     /lib/ld-2.11.2.so
b7786000-b7787000 rw-p 0001c000 08:15 867489     /lib/ld-2.11.2.so
bf8cb000-bf8ed000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0          [stack]
Przerwane

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

Comment By: Cyrill Gorcunov (cyrillos)
Date: 2011-03-06 01:10

Message:
for me looks like a bug but to be sure I need to find some spare time for
review, I'll try to resolve this in a couple of days, ok?

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

Comment By: Wojciech Migda (wmigda)
Date: 2011-03-06 01:05

Message:
I have not tried 2.09.06 bc it is not in gentoo's portage tree. I can see
you've reproduced double free on 2.09.06, but what do you think about the
nasm's problem with the shown preprocessor directives construction ? Is it
a bug or a design ?

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

Comment By: Cyrill Gorcunov (cyrillos)
Date: 2011-03-06 00:33

Message:
ok, bug on double free confirmed with 2.09.06. i'll check, thanks again!

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

Comment By: Cyrill Gorcunov (cyrillos)
Date: 2011-03-06 00:30

Message:
hmm, have you tried 2.09.06?

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

Comment By: Cyrill Gorcunov (cyrillos)
Date: 2011-03-06 00:28

Message:
Thanks for report! 2.10rc series is under review so for stable projects use
2.09.xx series (just for info).

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

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=106208&aid=3200749&group_id=6208