For the csv grammar in the given example it core dumps when forming an AST of it
file <- (header NL)? record (NL record)* NL?
header <- name (COMMA name)*
record <- field (COMMA field)*
name <- field
field <- escaped / non_escaped
escaped <- DQUOTE (TEXTDATA / COMMA / CR / LF / D_DQUOTE)* DQUOTE
non_escaped <- TEXTDATA*
COMMA <- ','
CR <- '\r'
DQUOTE <- '"'
LF <- '\n'
NL <- CR LF / CR / LF
TEXTDATA <- !([",] / NL) .
D_DQUOTE <- '"' '"'
#0 0x000000000043267a in std::_Hashtable<std::string, std::pair<std::string const, peg::Definition>, std::allocator<std::pair<std::string const, peg::Definition> >, std::__detail::_Select1st, std::equal_tostd::string, std::hashstd::string, std::__detail::_Mod_range_hashing, std::__detail::_Default_ranged_hash, std::__detail::_Prime_rehash_policy, std::__detail::_Hashtable_traits<true, false, true> >::_M_begin (this=0x0)
at /opt/gcc/4.8.3/include/c++/4.8.3/bits/hashtable.h:369
#1 0x0000000000429eae in std::_Hashtable<std::string, std::pair<std::string const, peg::Definition>, std::allocator<std::pair<std::string const, peg::Definition> >, std::__detail::_Select1st, std::equal_tostd::string, std::hashstd::string, std::__detail::_Mod_range_hashing, std::__detail::_Default_ranged_hash, std::__detail::_Prime_rehash_policy, std::__detail::_Hashtable_traits<true, false, true> >::begin (this=0x0)
at /opt/gcc/4.8.3/include/c++/4.8.3/bits/hashtable.h:455
#2 0x00000000004216f6 in std::unordered_map<std::string, peg::Definition, std::hashstd::string, std::equal_tostd::string, std::allocator<std::pair<std::string const, peg::Definition> > >::begin (this=0x0)
at /opt/gcc/4.8.3/include/c++/4.8.3/bits/unordered_map.h:249
#3 0x00000000004237e9 in peg::parser::enable_ast<peg::AstBasepeg::EmptyType > (this=0x7ffe1c236ca0) at cpp-peglib/peglib.h:3254
If the (?) operator is not used, it doesn't crash. Any reason to not use the (?) operator
For the csv grammar in the given example it core dumps when forming an AST of it
CSV grammar based on RFC 4180 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4180.txt)
file <- (header NL)? record (NL record)* NL?
header <- name (COMMA name)*
record <- field (COMMA field)*
name <- field
field <- escaped / non_escaped
escaped <- DQUOTE (TEXTDATA / COMMA / CR / LF / D_DQUOTE)* DQUOTE
non_escaped <- TEXTDATA*
COMMA <- ','
CR <- '\r'
DQUOTE <- '"'
LF <- '\n'
NL <- CR LF / CR / LF
TEXTDATA <- !([",] / NL) .
D_DQUOTE <- '"' '"'
#0 0x000000000043267a in std::_Hashtable<std::string, std::pair<std::string const, peg::Definition>, std::allocator<std::pair<std::string const, peg::Definition> >, std::__detail::_Select1st, std::equal_tostd::string, std::hashstd::string, std::__detail::_Mod_range_hashing, std::__detail::_Default_ranged_hash, std::__detail::_Prime_rehash_policy, std::__detail::_Hashtable_traits<true, false, true> >::_M_begin (this=0x0)
at /opt/gcc/4.8.3/include/c++/4.8.3/bits/hashtable.h:369
#1 0x0000000000429eae in std::_Hashtable<std::string, std::pair<std::string const, peg::Definition>, std::allocator<std::pair<std::string const, peg::Definition> >, std::__detail::_Select1st, std::equal_tostd::string, std::hashstd::string, std::__detail::_Mod_range_hashing, std::__detail::_Default_ranged_hash, std::__detail::_Prime_rehash_policy, std::__detail::_Hashtable_traits<true, false, true> >::begin (this=0x0)
at /opt/gcc/4.8.3/include/c++/4.8.3/bits/hashtable.h:455
#2 0x00000000004216f6 in std::unordered_map<std::string, peg::Definition, std::hashstd::string, std::equal_tostd::string, std::allocator<std::pair<std::string const, peg::Definition> > >::begin (this=0x0)
at /opt/gcc/4.8.3/include/c++/4.8.3/bits/unordered_map.h:249
#3 0x00000000004237e9 in peg::parser::enable_ast<peg::AstBasepeg::EmptyType > (this=0x7ffe1c236ca0) at cpp-peglib/peglib.h:3254
If the (?) operator is not used, it doesn't crash. Any reason to not use the (?) operator