http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #20 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-20 17:27:36 UTC --- (In reply to comment #19) > base returned from get_base_address should never be NULL, so it's > safe to assume it isn't. Otherwise the patch looks ok to me. > Unfortunately, when I was bootstrapping a modified patch without the NULL test on x86_64, it segfaulted. The reason is that expand_debug_expr calls set_mem_attributes_minus_bitpos and in t passes MEM[(struct basic_stringbuf *)&__s._M_stringbuf]._M_string which might be OK for debug statements, I don't really know. Even though I guess it might wreck havoc in address spaces in debug info, for now I'm reverting to the original patch from comment #17 for the purposes of this PR. Perhaps get_base_address misses a DECL_P in the condition looking into MEM_REFs?
